SOCIAL SOMATIC THEORY

1

Jill GREEN
Furthermore, as Johnson suggests, dominantcultures often perpetuate this body/mind split in an effort to maintain somatic weakness and disconnectionin order to preserve control. By disconnecting people
from their sensory and sensual selves, through the imposition of external models of "ideal bodies," or standards of what the body "should be" and how it shouldact, the dominant culture maintains control as people inoppressed groups distrust their own sensory impulses
and give up their bodily authority. And, according
to Johnson, it allows human exploitation and suffering to take place in the name of science. Resonatingwith some feminist thinkers, Johnson points out thatearly women health practitioners, for example, were
ostracized and condemned as witches for providing alternative health practices that were basically somaticand worked with an authority of perception and innerawareness. He contends that,
The most disastrous result of splitting mind
from body and intelligence from perception,and of giving value to the former over the latter, is the topsy-turvy system of social values
found in the recent history of human slaughter,
which has been carried out by...'experts,' justified by scientific rationalism, and supported bymasses of citizens who have been trained to perceive only in the most truncated fashion. (1992,
pp.112-113)
This not about being anti science or saying that there isno truth, which is a problem in US but about acknowledging other ways of knowing as well.
Additionally, much of social somatic theory
also intersects with postmodern literatures of the body.
Postmodernists such as Lyotard, Foucault, and Derrida
question assumptions of the modern age such as the belief that reason and scientific inquiry alone can provide
an objective and universal foundation for knowledge.
They argue, "hegemonic metanarratives [grand theoryof modern times], rather than reflecting a universal reality, are embedded in the specific historical time andplace in which they are created and are associated withcertain political baggage" (PARPART, 1992, p. 1).
They argue that there are privileged social discoursesthat silence other voices.
Much of Johnson's work is grounded in the
discourse of Michel Foucault, who looked at power

In 1993, I coined the term “social somatictheory” (GREEN, 1993). Since that time, the need forviewing dance bodies through a socio-political lens hasgrown, particularly in current times of social upheaval
and unrest. A number of scholars are now questioning
the ideas and viewpoints inherent in a somatic approachthat does not address a larger macro context.
In this presentation, I attempt to describe andexplain social somatic theory, explore how dance bodies are socially constructed, investigate the research,pedagogical, and practical applications of the concept,
and address, issues and tensions associated with this approach and its relationship to other bodily approaches.
Social Somatic Theory
Some somatic theorists have begun to address sociopolitical issues related to the soma. Although somatictheory and practice tend to focus on inner experience,
there are some somatic theorists and educators who
move into a more macro socio-political sphere and address how our bodies and somatic experiences are inscribed by the cultures in which we live. I call thisbody of literature "social somatic theory" because it addresses socio-political issues related to somatic theory
and practice. By no means, a monolith, these various
discourses bump up against each other and may not be
consistent with some components of somatic theory ingeneral, particularly Thomas Hanna’s views of somatics (See GREEN, 1993, 1996a, 1996b). However, one
commonality among the literatures of social somatictheory is a general shift that moves outward from micro
to macro dimensions and from self to society.
Social somatic theory draws on the ideas ofsuch writers as Don Johnson (1992) and Elizabeth
Behnke (1990-91) who have addressed issues of bodily
authority and have demonstrated how our bodies areshaped by the cultures in which we live. According tothese theorists, Western culture creates the myth of abody/mind split. This split does not simply separate
our minds from our bodies and favor mind over body.
Rather, there is an active obsession with the body as
an objective, mechanical entity. However, according tothese theorists, this split removes us from the experiences of our bodies and often results in disconnecting
us from our own inner proprioceptive signals and fromour somas as living processes.

『舞踊學』第41号

－69－

2018年

and its relationship to knowledge (1979, 1980). Although Foucault was interested in studying power andextremes of standardizing bodily behavior that havecharacterized institutions in a historical context and did
not directly address the body as a source of pedagogy(and rejected power as repressive but rather explained
it through discourse), his studies similarly approach the
body as a site of social and political control and power.
I mention these bodily discourses, which are
directly or indirectly related to social somatic theory,
in an attempt to demonstrate the possibilities of somatics and expand the definition of somatic practice andtheory. As Johnson points out, somatic practice alone,
without a larger global context, may actually harm students rather than help them. He points out the dangers
of a rigid scientific rationalism, but also cautions us
against any fundamentalism, even regarding somatic
practices, dance training and educational systems that
become models of authority themselves and that impose external models of correctness without helping
students experience their bodily and sensual authority(1992). Therefore, any educational system is suspect if
it encourages students not to listen to their inner voices
and somas and forces them to apply external standards,
forms and models. At the same time, this means thatstudents may find ownership through a somatic approach, but an approach that does not embrace individualism and the universality of bodily experience.

ture. He sees the body as a viewpoint and claims, “Mybody – its sensibilities, movements styles, reaction patterns, and health – is not simply an individual reality
governed by its own biophysical laws and idiosyncratic
effects of my personal history. I am also a result of theideologies within which I move” (JOHNSON, 1992).
In other words, bodily experience is not neutral
or value free; it is shaped by our backgrounds, experiences, and sociocultural habits. We are not all given
some generalized body and all bodies are not the same.
Our bodies are constructed and develop in a particularplace at a particular time and are habituated by the culture in which we live. Therefore, it is helpful to study
the sociocultural effects on the body as well as how ourbodies work in practice. This means being aware thateveryone’s bodily experience is different and that there
is no universal construction of the body nor is there an
ideal body type, alignment, or correct way to be in ourbodies. We are taught how to live in our bodies; therefore, our bodies are not the same.
The dancing bodies of different students, and students
in different cultural settings, have different requirements and needs; they are diverse and grow to be different cultural bodies (see JOHNSON, 1992).

Social Constructions of Dance Bodies vs. the Universality of Dance Bodies
Somatic knowledge in and of itself is not inherently
good or bad. The mistake that can be made, however,is aiming for universality in the rules that govern somatic principles. Generally somatic theory delves into
personal subjective ways of knowing the world withoutlooking at the idea of inner bodily experiences as a sociocultural constructions. Somaticists tend to look at
somatic experience as real and universal (see HANNA
1996, 1998.) However, “social somatic theory” re-envisions the possibilities of somatics on diverse levels anddimensions. In earlier works, I question the focus on
science alone, or an epistemology based solely on uncovering facts (Green, 2001, 2015). I point out that ourbodies are influenced by our prior experience, histories,
and culture. This does not mean that we throw away
basic tenets of somatic thinking, but that we extend theways we study bodies and recognize that somatic experience is not about truth and facts but about how we livein our bodies in society and culture.
For example, Johnson claims that our bodies
and bodily experiences are shaped by history and cul-

Examples in Dance Research and Pedagogy
A number of dance scholars have been attracted to thismore macro approach and there are a number of ways“social somatic theory” is or can be the impetus of workin dance pedagogy and research. For example, my research with students about body image explored social
bodily issues through somatic practice. As I say in the
abstract of one of my articles,
This article explores body, power and pedagogical issues related to a study in dance education.
The study investigated the body perceptions ofparticipant student teachers in a somatics andcreativity project within a university level instructional setting. During this project somatic
practices were used to explore body perceptions
and image. The students then created what theycalled an ‘interactive movement performance’,
which explored the issues raised in class. It
explored how these body perceptions are influenced by society and the dance world. During
the project the participants were asked questions about previous experiences in dance education, and how they have learned to perceive
their bodies in reference to a model weight andbody ideal.

『舞踊學』第41号

2018年

－70－

The initial qualitative/postpositivist analysis,

from class discussion, interviews, observationand document analysis, indicated that the participants’ previous experiences in dance did reflect an emphasis on‘ideal body’ myths in the dance world. Students
also expressed the value of somatic practice asa tool for body awareness and consciousness ofthese socio-political issues in traditional dance
education. The students tended to tie somatics to an inner authority that resists technologies of normalization and dominant meaningsystems in dance and society. Somatic practicefacilitated a dialogue through which they realized and expressed the pressures to meet an imposed bodily standard. Further, it allowed themthe space to explore a connection to their bodies
rather than the disconnection that comes fromattempting to meet standards of bodily ideals.
(GREEN, 2001)
In another project, I used somatic practice withwomen with breast
cancer:
The purpose of this study was to explore waysthat Kinetic Awareness®, a somatic body anddance practice, can help women with breast
cancer deal with the symptoms of their treatments. The stories of the women are told
through a multifaceted case study process, using postpositivist displays of data such as narrative and split page format. This strategy embodies an approach, which does not attempt to findgeneralized solutions, or prescriptions; portraythe researcher as authority; or attempt to speak
for the participants. Rather, it offers a multitudeof voices, viewpoints and possibilities. Throughthis qualitative approach, the study focuses onfinding agency within a medicalized system ofcare. (GREEN, 2015)
Thus, the socio-political issues I was exploring dealt
with how somatic practice may help these women findmore agency and ownership of their bodies.
Other scholars working in this realm include
Martha Eddy, Silvie Fortin; Leena Rouhiainenn, Eeva
Anttila, Teija Löytönen, Soili Hämäläinen, Jess Curtis,
and Ojeya Cruz Banks. Martha Eddy (2002) addresses
the issue of appropriation in somatic education and suggests that what we now call somatics began in Asianbody practices. Silvie Fortin (2002) points to the use ofsomatics throughout the world and addresses a study using somatics with women with eating disorders (2011).
Teija Loytonen (2004) “looks at how emotions are entwined together at a dance school. She addresses thepower structures and normative beliefs and ideas about
the best ways of teaching dance” (ROUHIAINEN,
ANTTILA, HÄMÄLÄINEN and LÖYTÖNEN (2004,
p. 12). Soili Hämäläinen looks at social power structures regarding student bodies and how student bodies
are shaped by cultural concerns. (2004). Eeva Anttila(2004) uses a Freiren framework to look at the meaning of freedom in dance, within a bodily perspective,
using a critical theory lens. Jess Curtis (2015) explores
somatics and contact improvisation as tools for socialchange. Natalie Garrett Brown ((2011), argues for thepolitical potentiality of embodied experience. Ojeya
Cruz Banks examines dance pedagogy as a tool for thedecolonization of dance bodies (BANKS, 2009).
The ideas shared by these authors tend to focus on the use of somatics as a tool for political change
or are a critique of how student dance bodies are constructed. They all move from an individual/self focus/
to embrace socio-political; or cultural aspects of dancing bodies.
Issues and Tensions
It may be valuable to recognize that some scholars
have critiqued somatic practice in general. Isabel Ginot deconstructs Shusterman’s theory of somaesthtics.
Ginot suggests that Shusterman’s work is problematic
because it has a limited focus that does not include
major aspects of the work he cites. One way Shusterman’s work is limited is that it aligns Foucault’s thinking with his own idea of “somatesthetics” and contends
that Foucault ‘s work represents a “body consciousness” and experiential level of embodiment (Shusterman 2008). Further, Shusterman does not consider thedifferences between Foucauldian and somatic views ofbodies. Foucault looked at power and its relationship toknowledge. His studies approach the body as a site ofsocial and political control and power. Although there
are connections between somatic theory and Foucauldian thought, a number of tensions exist between theseways of thinking. For example, Foucault would not
be fond of the idea of bodily experience and would besuspicious of the use of working pedagogically throughthe body. Although he viewed the body as a site ofpolitical manipulation and control and studied it as aneffect of the culture in which we live, his writing suggests a suspicion of typical somatic conceptualizations
such as bodily experience and practice (FOUCAULT,
1979, 1980). As Frank (1990) points out, “What Foucault contributes to the study of the body — beyond his
studies as a site of political violence — is an enhanced
self-electiveness about the project of the body itself”(p. 132).
『舞踊學』第41号

－71－

2018年

postmodern thought and somatics.
So, there are real differences and tensions between somatic theory in general and a more postmodern approach to the body. Although Ginot tends to define somatics as one way of thinking and practice with
one epistemology and does not recognize the growing
literature on social somatic theory, she does point out
that is problematic to view somatics as “an antidote todominant dance practices” (GINOT, 2012, p. 12). She
looks at how somatics has been addressed and finds, forexample, its relationship to science problematic as wellas its replacing a political and social conscience with asomatic conscience that views the subject.
Those who critique somatics in general, however, may not be aware of social somatic theory and theways it rejects essentialism and universality, while stillusing embodiment as a source of bodily information.
Social somatic theory may be one way of recognizing
the importance of bodily experience, while addressingthese concerns, moving thinking about somatics to aworldview that rejects individualism and essentialism
without throwing the idea of embodiment out the window. While most somatic theory embraces scientificlogical thinking and a positivist epistemology and ontology, social somatic theory sees the body through amore critical socially constructed view. It offers a “troubling” view of essentialist tenets of somatics without
rejecting bodily knowledge as a tool for exploring difference and justice.

In other words, Foucault does not claim that the
body can provide us with a grounded truth or that education through the body can free people from oppressive
social policies and authoritarian regimes. His writing
offers an approach rooted in a critique of institutions
through discourses created by a dominant culture. He
would be cautious about somatic practices because of
his claim that experience is based on how our perceptions have been socially constructed. He would be leeryof any claims to “experiential” or “somatic” authority.
In addition, Don Johnson (1992) points to thedanger of using somatic practice as a panacea to theworld’s ills without framing the discourse in a larger
social context. He suggests that by focusing solely on
individualistic bodily experience, we may be hypnotizing ourselves to the outer world and the problems Foucault addresses through his historical analyses.
Nevertheless, it may be recognized that although
Foucault rejected bodily practice and experience in his
early career, towards the later part of his career he came
to “refute the autonomy of discourse,” (MCNAY 1993,
p. 27) and to refer to the corporeal aspect of life. He
acknowledged that , “the discursive and material arelinked together in a symbiotic relationship” (27). Thus,
although he was more suspicious of experiential or corporeal notions of the body in his early years, he grew to
be more accepting of such aspects later in his life.
However, although Foucault did become more
accepting of bodily conceptualizations later in his life,
Shusterman sometimes misconstrues Foucault’s intent.
Shusterman criticizes sexual aspects of Foucault’swork, but does not seem to be aware that the core of
his work problematized a somaesthetics and foundno solutions to the problem through somatic practice.
Rather, he looked at the body through a historical lensand made his point through an analysis of language. I
read Foucault’s’ idea of for example, “care of the self”
as a societal prescription emanating from organizations
that attempt to control people through a focus on theirown behavior, not as a prescription for health and embodiment, as Shusterman suggests.
Thus, Shusterman’s alignment with Foucault
may be falsely prescriptive. Shusterman never addresses how the experience of the body is influenced byanything outside of an individualistic view.
This may be one example of how the differences in thinking are often ignored in body theory andsomatics. Shusterman’s ideas are more fully alignedwith Merleau Ponty and phenomenology because theyboth see the body as total experience. But his writing
about Foucault does not address the tensions between『舞踊學』第41号

1

Portions of this article were previously published in GREEN,
J, (2015). Social Somatic Theory: Issues and applications
in dance pedagogy, 13, 65-76.; GREEN, J. (2001). Social somatic theory, practice, and research: An inclusive
approach in higher education. Conference Proceedings,
Dancing in the Millennium: An International Conference(pp. 213-217). Washington, D.C.; and GREEN, J. (2015).
Moving in, out, and beyond the tensions between experience and social construction in somatic theory. Journal ofDance & Somatic Practices, 7(1), 7-19.

【References】
ANTILLA. E. Dance learning as a practice of freedom.
In ROUHIAINEN, ANTTILA, HÄMÄLÄINEN and LÖYTÖNEN (eds.), The Same Difference? Ethics and Politics Embodied in Dance,(pp. 65-76). Helsinki, Finland: Theatre Academy of Finland. 2004.

2018年

BEHNKE, E. A. Moving into a somatic future. Somatics: Magazine/Journal of the Bodily Arts andSciences, 8:1, 48-52. 1990-91.

－72－

CRUZ BANKS, O. Critical postcolonial dance recovery and pedagogy: An international literature
review. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 17:3,
355-367. 2009.

An inclusive approach in higher education.
Conference Proceedings, Dancing in the Millennium: An International Conference (pp. 213217). Washington, D.C. 2001.

BROWN, N. G. Disorientation and emergent subjectivity: The political potentiality of embodied encounter. Journal of Dance & Somatic Practices,3: 1 and 2. 61-73. 2011.

______The politics and ethics of health in dance education in the United States. In ROUHIAINEN,
ANTTILA, HÄMÄLÄINEN and LÖYTÖNEN(eds.),The Same Difference? Ethics and Politics
Embodied in Dance, (pp. 65-76). Helsinki, Finland: Theatre Academy of Finland. 2004.

CURTIS, J. Movement in the men’s movement: contact improvisation and social change. Journalof Dance & Somatic Practices, 7: 3. 129-142/
2015.
EDDY. M. Somatic practices and dance: Global influences. Dance Research Journal. 34:2, 46-62.
2002.

______Moving in, out, and beyond the tensions between experience and Social construction insomatic theory. Journal of Dance & Somatic
Practices, 7:1, 7-19. 2015.

FORTIN, S. Living in movement: Developmentof somatic practices in different cultures. Journal ofDance Education, 2:4, 128-136. 2002.

HÄMÄLÄINEN, S. Ethical issues of evaluation andfeedback in a dance class. In ROUHIAINEN,
ANTTILA, HÄMÄLÄINEN and LÖYTÖNEN(eds.), The Same Difference? Ethics and Politics Embodied in Dance, (pp. 79-106). Helsinki,
Finland: Theatre Academy of Finland. 2004.

FOUCAULT, M. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of
the Prison, New York, NY: Vintage. 1979.
______(1980), The history of sexuality: Vol. 1. An introduction (trans. R. Hurley), New York: Vintage Books. 1980.

HANNA, T. What is Somatics. Somatics: Magazine/
Journal of the Bodily Arts and Sciences, 5:4,
4-8. 1986.
HANNA, T. Somatics: Reawakening the mind’s control
of movement, flexibility, and health. Reading
MA. Addison-Wesley. 1998.

GINOT, I. From Shusterman’s somaesthetics to a radical epistemology of Somatics Dance Research
Journal, 42: 1, 12-29. 2010.

JOHNSON, D. Body: recovering our sensual wisdom.
Berkeley, CA. North Atlantic Books and Somatic Resources. 1992.

GREEN, J. Fostering creativity through movement andbody awareness practices: A postpositivist investigation into the relationship between somatics and the creative process. Ph.D., The Ohio
State University, Columbus OH. 1993.
______Moving through and against multiple paradigms: Postpositivist research in somatics andcreativity - Part II. Journal of Interdisciplinary
Research in Physical Education, 1:2, 73-86.
1996a.

LÖYTÖNEN T. Art, Emotion and Morals in the everyday life of a dance school. In ROUHIAINEN,
ANTTILA, HÄMÄLÄINEN and LÖYTÖNEN(eds.), The Same Difference? Ethics and Politics Embodied in Dance, (pp. 133-153). Helsinki, Finland: Theatre Academy of Finland. 2004.

______Moving through and against multiple paradigms: Postpositivist research in somatics andcreativity - Part I. Journal of Interdisciplinary Research in Physical Education, 1(1), 4354.1996b.

MCNAY, L. Foucault and Feminism. Boston, MA.
Northeastern University Press. 1993.
PARPART, J.L. Who is the “other”?: A postmodern
critique of women and development theory andpractice. Unpublished manuscript.
ROUHIAINEN, L. Troubling gendered views on thechoreographic practice of Finnish contempo-______Social somatic theory, practice, and research:『舞踊學』第41号

－73－

2018年

rary dance. In TROUHIAINEN, ANTTILA,
HÄMÄLÄINEN and LÖYTÖNEN (eds.), The
Same Difference? Ethics and Politics Embodied in Dance, (pp. 155-190). Helsinki, Finland:
Theatre Academy of Finland. 2004.
ROUHIAINEN, L. ANTTILA, E. HÄMÄLÄINEN, S
and LÖYTÖNEN, T Introduction. In ROUHIAINEN, ANTTILA, HÄMÄLÄINEN andLÖYTÖNEN (eds.), The Same Difference?
Ethics and Politics Embodied in Dance, (pp.
7-13). Helsinki, Finland: Theatre Academy ofFinland. 2004.
SHUSTERMAN, R. Body conscious: A philosophy ofmindfulness and Somaesthetics. Cambridge,
UK. Cambridge University Press. 2008.

【付記】本論文は第70回舞踊学会大会第１日目大会企画の基調講演において，グリーン教授がビデ
オ・プレゼンテーションで用いられた発表原稿の全文です。ご本人の承諾を得て本誌に掲載しております。

『舞踊學』第41号

2018年－74－