Educational Psychology—Limitations and Possibilities

Rudolph von Laban 237
argument that we need to examine the language of LMA more carefully and consider alternative
discourses/approaches to dance education.
While not actually interrogating either of these two points of view, because there is more depth
to them than I have actually outlined here, what intrigued me was the fact that the language we do
use for dance education tends to have remained unchanged for many years. The list of descriptive
words I provided previously are clearly drawn from Laban’s theories of movement, and, as such,
have become somewhat universal in their usage no matter what the context, such as the culture,
language, age, and experience.
I also began to wonder if the language used could actually be detrimental to the acceptance of
dance, particularly given the fact that dance aficionados would like to see dance as something all
people could do in education. This concern relates not only to the teachers (aka adults) but also
to the students/children, to whom this language would be imparted as a way to promote dance
in schools. This language also filters down to early childhood environments, where, I know from
experience, the language or vocabulary used is, or at least should be, gradually sidelined in favor
of more meaningful terms and approaches to engage the young child’s interest in dance.
What I started to see in this analysis was the fixation to hold onto certain language that was
once codified by a theorist without considering that other language, vocabulary, or points of view
about what constitutes dance could be used. It was almost as if there was a fear, or even a guilt,
that if one did not heed what a now-well-known theorist espoused (and so thoughtfully too, in
that time considering little other form of codifiying dance was done apart from ballet), it was seen
as sacrilegious to dare to alter or add to the already established and well-thought-out vocabulary,
or theory.
Now, I am obviously not the first person to have considered this question of the appropriateness
of language, because evidence is already offered in the initial openings to this query. I also
know that there are other dance texts that expand upon the language used in dance, while still
acknowledging the origins of the dance vocabulary used in most educational settings. For me,
nevertheless, this has larger ramifications than the actual language being used, although this is
obviously important because it not only is the crux of the matter being explored here, but it also
speaks of privileging some ways or approaches (languages) over others, as if the other ways of
speaking about dance (the child’s, different cultures, minorities, or the “other”) were not seen as
worthy or valuable in a predominantly Westernized/Eurocentric approach to education.
On the one hand, I value having a language for the area I teach; without the language there
would be a somewhat limited approach to teaching this subject. Also, without the language,
there would be little to help students with learning some of the basic and essential, or necessary,
components of dance education. A codified language, with some sound basis, is vital, particularly
in an area where it is seen that you do not actually have to think to move the body. The language or
literacy of dance provides at least some evidence of the fact that dance, too, requires some thought
and learning, beyond just using the body or copying movements that someone else demonstrates.
From a postmodern as well as postformal perspective, it is important, nevertheless, to remember
that these ways of thinking encourage the unearthing or uncovering of what is or what has been
taken for granted. These states of thinking promote continual growth and movement or change,
and, for this reason, applying a static approach to understanding the languages or legacies we have
inherited would exclude the development of new ways of thinking or seeing the world, which
was the very impetus that inspired Laban to develop his theories. I associate this perspective or
way of thinking with the notion of fluidity and flexibility (interestingly enough, two words Laban
uses in his analysis of movement), where nothing is set but is forever changing, as it is being
created by those involved in the process of learning and teaching. When one is involved in their
learning, this brings in different approaches drawn from diverse backgrounds where new and