Making the case for designation of the Laban/Bartenieff Movement SYSTEM
When I first proposed using the designation of “system” in the label and resulting acronym of LBMS over a decade ago, I encountered an amazing amount of resistance. To a certain extent this came from my arguing that Bartenieff be equally represented, rather than viewed separately, in identifying the movement analysis educational training. The original framework identified Laban Movement Analysis (LMA) as one specific thing and Bartenieff Fundamentals (BF) as another. This is a perspective which places an emphasis on parts rather than on the whole. Focusing on differentiation and an emphasis on analysis over synthesis rather than as the whole of Analysis/Synthesis.
I was also met with a considerable amount of pushback for using the term “system”. The expression “old habits die hard” comes to mind… I believe that this resistance is unwarranted and represents a pattern of avoidance of change and linked to habitual ways of thinking. I also believe that re-patterning in thinking about the way this work is identified is much needed and will continue to be needed – inevitably and unavoidably. I am always intrigued that in a community of movers, in which transformation is valued and that identifies movement as the process of change, that change is so very hard to address!
I must also note here that currently the acronym “LBMS” is now quite frequently used rather than the LMA/BF dichotomy. However, this rendering , by many refers to Laban/Bartenieff Movement Studies. This is, I believe, inaccurate and even a bit disingenuous. Labanotation, Kestenberg’s work, the Language of Dance and Movement Pattern Analysis can all be reasonably identified as falling under an educational label of Laban Studies. The term “Studies” refers to something else entirely. It is generally a large umbrella term. For example, used to identify Women’s Studies or Cultural Studies etc. What is taught in movement analysis training programs based in the Laban/Bartenieff Movement SYSTEM does not train students in these applications.
So what is a “system” ?
A system may be defined as: (the definition that follows below is an amalgam gleaned from several sources)
- An organized, purposeful structure that consists of interrelated and interdependent parts. These component parts continually influence one another (directly or indirectly) to maintain their activity and the existence of the whole system, and to achieve the goal(s) of the system.
- A system is a set of interacting and interdependent component parts forming a complex/intricate whole. Every system is delineated by its spatial and temporal boundaries, surrounded and influenced by its environment, described by its structure and purpose and expressed in its functioning.
Systems are described as synergistic. Andthat this is inherent to the nature of being a system. Systems, as conceptual models, are built upon the premise that the relationship(s) among the parts is essential to the meaning, expression, intent and purpose of the whole. In LBMS thematic duality thinking this resonates with the idea of Content/Container, the system as a model is the container of the parts that it holds as well as is shaped by.
Recognition of systems thinking, and systems theory has become more and more essential as bodies of knowledge have continued to be more and more differentiated into parts. But in order to be useful the parts are recognized in the context of the whole.
The definition that I use when introducing LBMS is: A system is a representation of a complex whole. A system is defined through relationships of interwoven parts combing to form a dynamic whole. Systems, even as only representations of organic entitles, want to ensure their success, so they adapt and evolve to survive and thrive (i.e. remain relevant – or they become extinct).
A quote that I have found useful:
“ Models are never true: but there is truth in models… We can understand the real phenomenon only by simplifying it.”
Dani Rodrik from Economic Rules*
Anyone who has studied the Laban/Bartenieff material cannot deny that the above definitions of “system” clearly apply to how we identify the B Sp Sh and E Components in relationship to each other in the explication of the phenomenon of movement. This is in fact the heart of the material. Therefore, any problem with using the term “system”, from my perspective as a longtime teacher and practitioner of the work, is at best misguided.
I have been repeatedly told that Bartenieff did not like the term, and others have said that Laban too was disdainful of this. However, there is scarce clarification or evidence supporting these views. And perhaps even more significantly is that the work of these legendary individuals continues to evolve – as it should. Movement is, after all change. Clearly movement is a complex phenomenon that in analyzing we parse into parts that we then identify in relation to the whole of the context of the movement event. As I like to remind my students – – when I was in school Pluto was a planet and quarks had not been identified. The nature of knowledge is its expansion and development and continuing explication. However just as this is a process of more and more differentiation at the same time it needs to be woven into the whole.
Giving Bartenieff her due
Anyone who has read Bartenieff’s text, Body Movement: Coping with the Environment, knows that in her text she integrates Laban’s work of Space Harmony and the Dynamic of Effort Expression with her Body explication. There is no LMA and BF presented as separate independent bodies of knowledge. These parts are one whole construct in the process of deciphering the complex phenomenon of human movement for understanding the duality and wholeness of Function and Expression. I also want to encourage all of us to not fall into the trap/pattern of saying “Laban” when what we mean is: Laban/Bartenieff. Of course, it is quite possible to study Laban’s work without the contributions of Bartenieff, but this is not the work that CMA’s and other equivalent movement analysts are certified in! There is a part of me which also identifies this as a necessary feminist, or if one prefers womanist, stance and that we must not allow Barteneiff to be given short shrift in the way that so many women have been over the course of history.
I am happy to report that after adopting the title /acronym LBMS, now well over a decade ago in all the movement analysis programs I am associated with (in addition to workshops and continuing education classes ) as well as using this term in the text EverBody is a Body (coauthored with my colleague Laura Cox and now in its 2nd edition), the acronym LBMS is becoming widely used with the “S” referring to SYSTEM . I am confident that this more accurate label that identifies it as a system and not studies will eventually be adopted.
*Dani Rodrik is a Turkish economist and Ford Foundation Professor of International Political Economy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University
KStudd (initial doc first written in 2012 last updated 2019 and again 2024)