Been pondering about positivist and non-positivist stand-points. I think deep down in me, I do subscribe to the non-positivist view. I like being inquisitive and I love talking about different issues and see where the discussions can lead us. I like hearing what others have to say on a certain subject. Coming from the viewpoint of pragmatism that is programme is framed sits well with me - I like looking at different options and seeing different viewpoints.
However, what is different to get around my head is while there are different options and viewpoints and each has its worth, but the notion of not necessarily arriving at any conclusion, concrete or not, and being secure that it is also ok to end with a question, can at times leave me unfulfilled and even a little frustrated. Even the notion of researching and not finding an answer can leave me wanting to go on - even if it's to find something concrete. I suppose that is one of the points of researching - to keep looking, keep asking, keep being curious. The difference with me is I do want to find that answer eventually (and part of me believes there is an answer to be found).
Coming from a classical dance background, where there is a goal and one works (or do the exercises) to achieve that goal, it is hard to not work to expect an end result - to know what the end result is and work towards achieving it. Does that make dance training positivist? Specifically in the training of classical ballet where there is a 'right' and 'wrong' (to a certain extent), and we work towards that 'certainty' or end result - is that being positivist?
However, research has shown (and in the practice of 'best practices'), that although there might be an 'end result' that we might strive for, there are many different ways of arriving and getting to that 'result'. I think past experiences ( both physically and in life) can contribute to how our physical body responds to corrections or specific ways of executing movement. If our physical self has 'embodied' our past experiences, and experience is knowledge, then each individual will have its own way of moving or executing movement. So while the 'movement' might be the same (as required in a choreography), there will be different ways to arrive at getting that particular 'movement' or indeed, a different way of interpreting that movement - due to our past experiences and embodied knowledge. I believe that is quite common in the realm of contemporary dance but how can we reconcile that in the realm of classical dance, where so often dancers have to move together as one entity or the very point/reason of a certain sequence is in the beauty of a group of dancers dancing as one? Can each dancer still be autonomous within a group? Or is that now old fashoined and dancing together or moving as group has no place anymore in contemporary choreography (even if it's 'contemporary' ballet choreography)?
So - within the backdrop of dance pedagogy, can the training of dancers (both classical and contemporary) be both positivist and non-positivist? Can we encourage dancers (and dance students) to be autonomous while at the same time work within the framework of 'pragmatism'? For surely, we want dancers (and to train dance students) to be curious and make choices, to be individual, finding and making his or hers own mark and thus hopefully making his or hers own contribution to the wider world.
Would love to hear any thoughts on this....
