Choreographic practice and pedagogy as embodied ideological critique of the labour for knowledge

ABSTRACT

Choreographic practice still competes for the same level of value as language-based study in higher education and therefore choreographic practice and pedagogy can be a means through which to address issues of precarity for dance and dance studies in the university economy today. This article addresses this problem by sharing a UK-based extra-curricular choreographic research project exploring academic labour in a university library. The project uses a practice research framework to explore the idea of embodied ideological critique as a critical choreographic lens to view the library as a site of labour for knowledge. The method of site-specific choreography is used to replicate activities observed in the library and explore what activities at the site suggest about what the academy implicitly values as knowledge. The article advocates for ways to engage students to explore and question the changing landscape of higher education in terms of the historical, social and political values of knowledge in the academy and how this changing landscape impacts on dance in university contexts. Post-project reflections further advocate for the potential for small acts of resistance to increasing pressures of austerity, neoliberalism and corporatisation on university activities with choreographic pedagogy.

KEYWORDS:

• Choreographic pedagogy
• choreography
• knowledge
• labour
• critical wonder

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge the contribution of student participants, including those approved to be named through Institutional Ethics Processes: Hannah Finnimore, Natalie Holdys, Elodie LaFosse, Adrianna Michalska, Natalie Roberts, Kajsa Sundstrom, Chloé Turner. Although the author takes full responsibility for the ideas expressed, she would like to thank Adam Alston and Antje Hildebrandt for feedback on earlier drafts of the article. The research was first presented at the Performing Process: Sharing PracticeSymposium, C-DaRE, Coventry University.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. ParkourUK defines parkour as, ‘the non-competitive physical discipline of training to move freely over and through any terrain using only the abilities of the body, principally through running, jumping, climbing and quadrupedal movement. In practice, it focuses on developing the fundamental attributes required for such movement, which include functional strength and fitness, balance, spatial awareness, agility, coordination, precision, control and creative vision’ (ParkourUK n.d.). The World Freerunning Parkour Federation are a bit more vague, stating parkour is, ‘the act of moving from point “a” to point “b” using the obstacles in your path to increase your efficiency […] Parkour, fundamentally, is a philosophy, and a way a life. It’s a way of looking at any environment and believing in your heart that there is no obstacle in life that cannot be overcome. Everyone is a unique individual, so no two people will come up with the exact same solution, but there is a “way through” for us all’ (World Freerunning Parkour Federation n.d.).

2. Chow (2012) also references the work of Slavoj Žižek’s (2010) Living in the End of Times, namely Žižek’s argument that there is an ideological message communicated through the form of modern architecture: ‘What the official ideology cannot openly talk about may be revealed in the mute signs of a building’ (Žižek 2010, 255, 10). However, for matters of consistency I stick with de Certeau’s conceptions related to analysis of spatial ideologies as they were the most pertinent to the collaboration, but want to acknowledge that Žižek is also important to Chow’s point.

3. I am using the term labour to refer to the students’ work in the pursuit of a university degree that is a commodity that has an exchange value as intellectual capital in a Marxist frame and in reference to pressures of neoliberalism and the corporatisation of the university more broadly. Although students indeed pay for their degree, explicit discussion of the problem of students as consumers goes beyond the scope of this article. Rather, I am focusing here on the labour required to meet the full exchange value of the degree, in addition to the money students pay to study at the institution. For instance, the students’ labour for a mark/grade, and this mark/grade (and accumulation of) dictates different levels of exchange value for their degrees, i.e. a distinction holds greater exchange value than a merit.

4. University of Surrey Institutional Ethics Approval was received for this project.

5. Hannah’s space did not exist in the same way three years previous to the collaboration, in the first running of a pilot of this project. The floor was previously full of library shelves and work cubicles like Erin’s space. The library had deliberately changed the space to accommodate student feedback and students wanting more social study areas.

6. See also Harrington’s (2014) writing about collaborative pedagogy and how her research with a group of students shifted from I/We/Ours (p 109). She likewise writes about the ‘co-ownership’ and shared responsibility that was of value to her and the students (p 113).

7. Two conferences held in the UK, in 2016 and 2017 respectively, support the argument for the precarious position of dance in higher education today. In October 2016, DanceHE’s conference title was ‘Sustaining the Discipline: Embedding the Right to Dance in the C21st’. The call for papers declared that the conference was held ‘to meet to debate the broadening identities of dance scholarship and research at a time when arts knowledge and engagement continue to face precarious economic futures’ (Griffiths 2016 [email/electronic announcement]). In April 2017, three universities hosted a conference titled ‘Dance Fields: Staking a Claim for Dance Studies in the 21st Century’ and called for presentations to address strategic issues and questions facing dance survival in academia today (David 2016 [email / electronic announcement]). Echoing my concerns, Dr Katerina Paramana (2017) presented her paper ‘The Contemporary Dance Economy: Problems and Potentials in the Current Neoliberal Moment’ addressing the questions, ‘How is the conduct of the dance field affected by and affecting neoliberalism? What is dance’s role in the contemporary neoliberal moment?’ coming out of her experience of a number of dance events in 2015–16. Dr Antje Hildebrandt (2017) likewise presented her paper ‘Choreography, Education, Space, Value: Florence Peake’s Remake (on campus)’ arguing that Peake’s Remake addressed and critiqued, however subtly and somewhat un-intentionally, the corporate market-driven image of the University, the impetus towards treating students as consumers (as opposed to producers) of knowledge and the neoliberal commercialisation of education in the current UK HE climate (p 26).

8. To clarify, I find making a dance piece and writing an essay useful endeavors as well, particularly in dance education. My point here however is that this project made me consider how I might expand types of assessments requirements for modules to reflect the expanding notions of choreographic practice summarised above.

9. Anecdotally, two students repeatedly came back to me after the close of the project to discuss how the project had had an enduring effect on them. One student, Elodie, talked about a trip to the Louvre and noticing how the space choreographed tourists and visitors throughout the museum. Another, Adriana, said that because of the collaboration she no longer sees the library in the same way and is continually noticing new incidents that raise further questions for her about academic labour.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Shantel Ehrenberg

Shantel Ehrenberg is a contemporary dance practitioner and academic. She is Lecturer in Dance & Theatre at the University of Surrey. Shantel received her PhD from the University of Manchester, MSc at Trinity Laban, and MFA from University of California, Irvine.