How do we establish authentic connections? How do we get in touch with one another in such a way that we are both honoured in what we are, and yet we remain fully open to the other? As constitutively relational beings, we can’t avoid this sort of questions. Our daily life moves through a number of socially codified scripts that show patterns for relating with other beings, via specific roles that we learned to play. To some extent, this social scaffolding is necessary and helpful. Yet, it also always imposes some sort of mask or shape on top of something that is much broader, more ambiguous and indefinite, full of many other still unexpressed potentials. How do we establish authentic relations that can tap into that deeper level and allow it to become an active source of connection?
Dropping verbal communication and getting back to the body and its movement can be a good starting point. After all, everything that we do, think, or create translates itself in certain movements and tries to find some kind of embodiment. Understanding how to connect at a deeply embodied level is thus key to expand that way of connecting in other spheres of our existence. However, if we look at how we normally move, we find a mirror of all the ailments and wounds that plague our ways of relating to each other: tensions, cramps, jerks, insensitivity, holding back, defensiveness, fear. The problem becomes how to face these conditionings as kinaesthetic issues. If we can unknot them within the body, chances are that they will be released also at other levels.
Talking about embodiment, though, does not refer to a material object deprived of any affective and mental quality. Putting aside all forms of misguided mind-body dualism, it is important to acknowledge that the body is not just dead matter, nor even a living physiological mechanism. The body is a space of experience that entails somatic, affective, and symbolic dimensions. The somatic dimension is the most obvious and apparent, it encompasses what the body can do, the possibilities for the body to move through space, meet other bodies, and interact with them. The affective dimension concerns how the body moves through space, the way, tone, energy with which it operates. The symbolic dimension gives rise to the why of movement, its meaning, the reason, intention, aspiration that explain, justify and propel the movements. Discussing embodiment, all of these three dimensions need to be addressed in their own right and in their mutual interconnection.
There are several somatic practices that focus on conscious movement and can provide tools and opportunities to cultivate authentic connections. However, in actual practice, they often tend to focus more selectively on certain dimensions of embodiment rather than others. For instance, in ecstatic dance, there is a strong emphasis on the affective and sometimes also on the symbolic dimensions of embodiment. The invitation is that of letting the body free of moving however it wants to move, mostly for the purpose of releasing energy and emotions and allow free expression. This is all very refreshing. But besides a certain point it also creates a new limitation, as it provides very little guidance about what to do with the body. A time comes when one’s own self-exploration will inevitably fall back to certain patterns and scripts, which will take over the steering of movement and close the space for new learning. To move beyond them, confrontation with others and learning new skills is crucial. Moreover, by taking freedom as its main value and interpreting it as a sheer absence of rules or constraints, ecstatic dance can fall in the trap of self-indulgence, by conveying the idea that all is always good as it is, nothing needs to be changed or learned. To some extent, this is just true, but to some other extent, it overlooks the possibility that we all have to do what we do and being who we are even better (what Spinoza would call our striving or conatus to improve our own power of acting). As a result, it can well happen that people attending ecstatic dances have great journeys with themselves, while hardly connecting with anybody else at a deep and sustained level—and remaining even scared of this perspective. Isn’t there something missing?
In contact improvisation, the somatic aspect is very central. CI is in fact a rather systematic way of exploring how bodies can connect, and what they can do to connect with one another. The affective dimension is taken into account to some extent, but usually in a rather brief and general way (as when introducing the idea of mutual respect, boundaries, and consent). The symbolic level is hardly touched upon. This is what makes certain instances of CI (generalizing is tricky, since CI is not a well-codified and standardized practice, so it is actually done is many different ways) a bit lacking in terms of affective vibrancy and meaningfulness, occasionally verging more towards an athletic but heartless performance.
One of the problems with CI is often connected with the lack of containment, or with the way in which the practice space of CI is held (hence, this is more a problem with how CI is facilitated, rather than with CI as such). As an improvisational practice, CI tends to unfold in a free and unpredictable way, without clear endings or beginnings. A jam can last from a few minutes to several hours, without any clear structure. This is part of the beauty of CI. The lack of outward structure and scaffolding in the practice demands a huge amount of self-directedness and self-awareness from practitioners in order to compensate for the absence of external scaffolding. There is no freedom without some constraints, and when constraints are not external, they need to be created from within, in order for freedom to flourish. Hence, when the CI space is held too lightly or loosely, the way in which connections are formed within it tend to remain shallower. If people are not fully acknowledged and invited to enter the space with their own being and needs, if they are not helped to pause and reflect on what it means for them to connect with other beings, then they will tend to hold back, hide, or pass across each other, maybe interacting at the somatic level, but with much less clarity about the affective (how) and symbolic (why) dimensions of the experience.
Since almost a year, I have been familiar with another, relatively less known and more recent practice, ‘Contact Beyond Contact’ (CBC), which has been created by Vangelis Legakis in order to offer tools for establishing authentic, embodied, hearthfelt connections. CBC systematically incorporates somatic, affective, and symbolic elements, although its emphasis remains on the latter two (in this sense, it is less based on physical skills than CI proper, although it borrows some elements form it and develops more somatic competence than other conscious movement practices or ecstatic dance). Having followed CBC workshops for some time, and having completed a facilitator training (Level 2) the past weeks, I’d like to summarize here some of the most noteworthy contributions that CBC can bring to this discussion.
A central idea in CBC is that authentic connection requires (1) a deep heart-felt listening of the other. It is from this attitude of listening that it is possible to (2) invite another and being invited by them. Invitation, in turn, is linked with (3) the ability of letting go—maybe letting go of the need of having things ‘my way’, or maybe letting go of fear. Thanks to this letting go, (4) the connection can grow into a genuine co-creation, in which all parties involved are making a contribution to enact something that could not have been possible to anyone operating on their own. Listening, inviting, letting go, and co-creating are four of the main pillars of CBC, which provides several tools to explore and develop them.
An essential aspect of listening (1) is the ability of acknowledging, interpreting, and expressing intentions, communicating them to others, savouring the moment of their fulfilment, facing their failure when it happens, and letting them go. Intentions are what moves us in certain ways for certain purposes, and whatever action we carry out, it is always shaped by intentions (Buddhist philosophy agrees). Listening has to do with fully acknowledging our intentions, and carrying them out in a clear and intelligible way, for both ourselves and others. In CBC, intentionality is introduced and explored in kinaesthetic terms, as manifesting most fundamentally as a direction or pattern of motion. This directionality is emotionally inflected (in can be small or large, energetic or soft, relaxing or thrilling), and provides the basis for meaning formation (it can be interpreted as a symbol or metaphor for different emotional states, ideas, even concepts). One of the first basic moves in CBC consists precisely in explicitly familiarizing with the complex dynamic of intentionality, making it fully aware and deliberate, and hence also an object of possible reflection.
This approach is helpful not only to establish a deeper sense of connection with others, but also to carry and explore that connection within active and dynamic contexts. It is relatively easier to open and listen in contexts where we downregulate our activity, revert to a more relaxed mood, and let go of action. But can we keep a deep connection and a fine-tuned listening amidst dynamic engagement? CBC tends to regard both aspects (relaxation and engagement, activity and passivity) as necessary and complementary.
To get a concrete and embodied understanding of this general point, CBC encourages for instance to observe how we take roles in movement, distinguishing between ‘leading’ and ‘following’, and exploring when these roles can alternate, until they merge. Leading requires the ability of taking decisions, offering clear beginnings and endings, while also remaining open and sensitive to the person that is led. And following requires an availability of allowing oneself to be guided and to listen to the suggestion that is received, interpret it, and follow it. Leading and following are states that can be refined at increasing degrees of subtlety, from the relatively obvious situation in which one takes another from a point in space to the next, to the ability of following more subtle suggestions provided by open-ended ‘brushes’, and eventually being able to relate to the other through the space in between the bodies (or the energetic field of aura of them, if you wish), which seemingly separates them and yet keeps them in ‘contact beyond (physical) contact’.
Another crucial aspect emphasised in CBC is the acknowledgement of boundaries, dissent, disagreement, ‘no’—all moments in which the intentions of different individuals clash with one another. Part of how we experience our own identity is through difference from other beings. Unity is crucial, but there can be no unity without differentiation (if you wonder why, ask Plato or read the Sophist). Hence, being able to say ‘no’ and remaining true to this saying is essential for authentic connection. The ‘no’ is not just a disruption of the connection, but rather a reality check, a way of making sure that all parties involved are really in touch with one another for how they are, in their own autonomy and independent agency. The goal of CBC is to foster this sort of unity-within-difference (and difference-within-unity), which allows those involved in being fully immersed in a group field without losing themselves and their freedom in the group or in the other.
To facilitate this latter aspect, CBC offers several tools to practice how does it feel to express a ‘no’ in movement (like when I remain in my own core position and do not respond to the invitation of another, or I simply move away from that invitation), and how we can deal with it. Instead of experiencing the ‘no’ as a challenge or as a form of disconnect, CBC encourages to see the ‘no’ as a manifestation of the other’s own intentionality, to honour it, and trying to use it as a springboard to establish a deeper connection. How can I still connect with this person, knowing what they do not want to do? Asking this question is connected with another crucial dimension of CBC, which has to do with the ability of inviting and being invited. The ‘no’ can be seen as a request for experimenting with different ways of connecting, and coming up with an alternative invitation, which might eventually suit better all parties involved. Inviting is a subtle skill, which has to do with the ability of communicating one’s own intention the other, while fine-tuning that intention on the basis of what the other can receive, adapting it to their boundaries, and presenting it in a way that does not feel compelling or constricting.
From the relatively simple gesture of listening (1), we then discover the integral role that negation (stopping, resisting, saying ‘no’) plays in acknowledging the other as such, and from this place we learn (2) how to formulate more effective and authentic invitations (and how to allow ourselves to be invited by the other). This brings in (3) the ‘art of letting go’. Echoing a Buddhist theme, CBC emphasises the fact that we cannot really establish an authentic connection if we are not willing to let go, at least from time to time, of what we want to do. The ability of switching roles, moving from leading to following or vice versa, is a simple but clear example of letting go. Letting go, from this relational perspective, is not something done always and unilaterally by just one individual. It’s more like a dialogue, sometimes I let go, sometimes you do. Like the play of ‘yes’ and ‘no’, also ‘letting go’ is a cycle, a process.
CBC encourages us to experience from a very embodied perspective what does it take and how does it feel to let go of one’s intention in order to be invited by the other, or how to communicate one’s invitation so that the other can let go of their resistance and open up to do something together. Letting go, in this sense, represents the moment of negotiation between different individuals and their intentions, which instead of stubbornly wanting to keep their point, decide to relinquish something in order to explore something more, together. In this sense, letting go leads to (4) co-creation, which is perhaps one of the end goals and results of CBC. Co-creation is a state of flow based on an heartfelt sense of connection, in which whatever happens is both true to individual intentions, and resulting from their combination, in a way that no single individual party could have expected or brought about.
In presenting these practices, CBC tends to use relatively simple somatic patterns, accessible to most people even without any prior movement training. This facilitates the ability to reflect on the symbolic dimension of the practice itself (what in CBC is labelled ‘psychosomatic benefits’) and thus connecting the kinaesthetic patterns directly with the level of meaning and how we interpret our life and experience more generally. For instance, once it becomes clear how we react to a ‘no’ in the case of motion, or what is our attitude towards ‘leading’ and ‘following’, it is possible to meditate on how these same reactions and attitudes are also present and inform other areas of our lives. Vice versa, once we learn how to ‘invite’ and ‘being invited’ into kinaesthetic terms, we can more easily apply the same skills in different domains (which nonetheless will still involve some form of movement). In this way, a central aspect of CBC consists in the reflective loop between somatic practice and other areas of life, which intertwine together in a continuous attempt to see how they mutually inform each other, and in what ways learning new somatic kinaesthetic patterns can provide a basis for new, healthier and freer ways of living.
CBC can be used as an autonomous practice in its own right. It does have its distinctive structure and form, and it also encourages a relatively recognizable way of moving (very flowy, soft, mild-paced, effortless and physically not very demanding). This can be very helpful especially if someone is seeking a form of somatic therapy and healing dynamic space. Elements of CBC can also be integrated into ecstatic dance and other open conscious dance forms, as tools for fostering connection and communication, within a broader container that tends to include a greater variety of emotional states and a wider palette of possible movements, expressions, and music. Elements of CBC can also be integrated back into CI, especially concerning the communication and dynamics of intentionality (leading and following, yes and no, inviting and being invited, letting go) in order to create a more solid basis for CI practitioners to explore the full range of possibilities of what bodies can do together when they start becoming a unified dynamic system.
I am very grateful for the sense of trust and confidence that I experienced through ecstatic dance. Being immersed in a space that makes no demands on you and give full permission to be whatever you are in the moment, is extremely freeing and healing. I’m also very grateful to the sensitivity that CBC taught (and it is still teaching) me in dealing with others, listening, adjusting, and co-creating together. And I’m extremely grateful for the depth and even wildness of connection that I have discovered through CI, which I never found before in any other practice. A very common attitude is to identify a certain form, structure, or practice and then to close upon it, to crystallize it, to make it into a thing in itself and then to work for its conservation and reproduction. This ritualization is pervasive in all areas of human culture throughout space and time. Here, the Buddhist teachings provide a good reminder, by mentioning that ‘the wrong grasp of rituals and morals’ is in fact a fetter in one’s personal development towards freedom. This ‘wrong grasp’ consists in making what is just a tool into an end in itself. Similarly, one might take ‘ecstatic dance’ or ‘contact improvisation’ or even ‘CBC’ as a thing in itself, as an end goal, a form to keep and reproduce, forgetting how to use any of them as tools for cultivating, developing and improving authentic connection. If we remain true to this instrumental approach and keep it clear how to use these practices to help us delving deeper into connection, then the only issue left is pragmatical (or pedagogical): how to best integrate them and adapt them to different people in different circumstances. And from here, there is an ocean of possibilities to experiment with that is still wide open.
A short video shoot during the CBC training Level 2 in Athens in June 2024. Credits to Unity Space and Vangelis Legakis for organizing the training (and inventing the practice!).
Comments