People as Institutions - what does it mean?

When the idea of people as institutions came up in the December 1st skype chat I was intrigued.  What does this mean?  What are the implications?  We were discussing whether or not it was ethical to name a person in our written work with whom we had a negative interaction with professionally.  

What are we doing when we name people? 

Personal responsibility is important.  Acknowledging who your reader is may be important.  (Will they or won't they know who I am naming?  In the instance of Martha Graham, more likely they will know.  In the instance of someone I have worked for in Montreal, perhaps not as likely). A question I had was, when deciding to name someone or something in your writing, what information will it add to what you are communicating?  If it doesn't add anything, maybe not so important to name.  But then I had this question of whether the name could be important at a later juncture, to some future discussion.  In other words, when Graham began we can assume that it was not evident how important she would be to future discussions, to provide context and so on.  

I thought about ethics in the context of a blog post I wrote a while ago, where I named the school I studied at.  My experience there was both good and not good.  Every couple weeks I think about editing out the school's name, but then I think, what if it is useful for the bigger conversation - locally, nationally, internationally? -  to name where my experience took place and provide a context for my reflections.   I need to take agency for what I learned and what I say about that learning.... so why not just say the name?  In the bigger discussion, how can things change or develop if we don't talk about them?  And how do we change or develop things if we treat them like they are immovable?  

Which brings us to (drum roll) people as institutions.  One of the most provocative (yet somehow completely sensible) positions I've come across regarding instituting ideas/movements in dance is that of Peter Boneham.  Peter did and didn't develop a contemporary technique.  It's not a technique because it's not trademarked, it's not called 'Boneham Technique', and there aren't a slew of people hosted at international workshops teaching it.  It shares many of the qualities of a 'dance technique': specificity of approach, clear point of view, values, principles, resulting aesthetic.... and share none of the ones that make it immovable.  Peter was effusive about how, if a technical approach to dance stopped questioning what it was doing and if those questions didn't somehow impact the form, it was dead (not useful anymore).  The field is in flux, he as an artist and person is changing, invariably the approach transforms as well. (Told you it was sensible.  He is a logical man.)  He is also generous:  claiming no ownership over the principles that shape his approach and the resulting forms.  And it's not that his ideas aren't something to brag about: my experience working with his approach was like being one of the people in Plato's cave looking at the dancing shadows and then all of sudden someone tells you to turn around and check out the sun.  It took my technique from zero to hero.  It is still something that informs how I work when I step in the studio. 

I recently decided to undertake dance technique teaching certification, and returned to a conversation with a close colleague and friend about the impact of instituting dance technique.  It really is problematic because it sets us on a path of associating movements to certain artists, and makes it challenging for that movement then to be used by others.  No one can do a 'pleading' without evoking Martha Graham.  Pleadings are an institution.  Graham is an institution.  She developed movements, created exercises for them, those exercises are fixed ('turns around the back' will always fucking be 'turns around the back' ), and laid out a progression for class.  New generations breath life into the forms by offering their perspective, but mostly it stays the same.  And that's fine.  It's great.  That's the idea.  But now we have this problem of do we or don't we teach this decades old style in professional dance schools.  How does learning this technique serve the dancer of today?  Based on what is happening in dance today?  How do we honour what happened before without earmarking so much space that we haven't got enough to assess where we're going? 
.......
Should we name people, if we do so as a result of an unfavourable experience?  No idea.  You can check out my second blog though, where I name the dance school where I trained pre-professionally. Maybe you have some thoughts about what I said, or how I said it, or have something to add.  I am interested in conversation.  My blog is not an institution.  It's a moveable thing.

Answering questions around Ethics, and "I am an Activist / Pragmatist who appreciates both observation and logic"

What actions have you highlighted to define yourself?
Well, I used a photo of myself covering most of my face for my blog, and have not used my name. To me this signifies that I have in part elected to create a bit of secrecy around who I am.  This makes sense to me as, what would be the impetus for you reader to read on if not for some questions left unanswered?  I believe that curiosity and a willingness to engage are related to a desire for more information and /or space for you to use your imagination to fill in the blanks.

What do you value?

• being generous with my support of artists and their work (this usually manifests during a creative process, or training, as opposed to me as an audience member).  A personal connection is often a key ingredient (acquaintance of artist, member of the community, etc.)
• curiosity
• relevant things (not so interested in extraneous things that are far reaching for me to connect to)
• efficiency
• rigour

How do you (re)present these?
As a teacher, I am transparent that what I offer in my class is functional.  I do not use images and my class work is not organic.  It will provide the participant with strategies to assess or access personal development.
As an artist, I request concrete information (a theme, a quality, a setting, etc.) about the choreography so that I can be grounded in something.  If there are many unknowns, it is important for me to have some knowns: this is how I feel comfortable and capable moving forward with the creation of work.
I prefer to be a catalyst for inclusion.  I think this stems from my wavering self-confidence.  I believe that if participants feel confident, or a sense that they have space (literally) to do and say what they need to work at their best, they are more apt to be generous with their contributions.  I conduct myself in work settings with sensitivity to the actualization of such a space.
When I work to access efficiency, I do so through structures that are rigorous and sometimes physically intense.  This may seem counter-intuitive, but I find it a successful approach.  The scenario dictates that to sustain the activity I must be in the task of being efficient.

How have you reached the point at which you begin your MA?
In 2014/15, I observed the problem of lacking post-secondary credentials, particularly as they related to supporting my work as a teacher in accredited institutions.  My extensive field experience was not acknowledged or acted upon with the same value as say, a master's degree.  As a goal I would like to continue working in dance as long as possible.  The idea of retiring is not well-suited to me.  I enjoy working - offering support, sharing my experience - immensely.  Feeling needed and useful are important to my sense of self, and well being.  Not strictly being a performer for the duration of my career in dance seems wise.  I am pursuing an MA to offer parallel employment opportunities to my performance work.

How have you acquired your knowledge?
I have acquired much of my knowledge through practical, self-guided experience.  I discovered that a blue print for a dance career doesn't really exist.  I have pulled information for how to construct my career from the structures of organizations that have employed me, through conversation with colleagues and collaborators, and from personal observation gained from participation in diverse work and professional development scenarios.

I am an activist / pragmatist.  I identify with the descriptions below (from the handbook):

Activists like to take direct action. They are enthusiastic and welcome new challenges and experiences. They are less interested in what has happened in the past or in putting things into a broader context. They are primarily interested in the here and now. They like to have a go, try things out and participate. They like to be at the centre of attention. 

Activists like:

• to think on their feet
• to have short sessions
• plenty of variety
• the opportunity to initiate 
• to participate and have fun

*Interesting side note:  I am completing this blog in conjunction with the completion of my first draft of my Review of Learning essay and it is great to read that activists are challenged by putting things (knowledge, experience) in a broad context.  This is definitely me!  I don't think it's because the broad context in uninteresting, it's just that there is something functional about the here and now.  If it's in front of me, all I have to do is engage with it, and it's working (or, that's the work!).  Whereas, for me, considering the elements that exist within, and that are impacted by a context feels like making a map for a place that I can't envision.  Challenging!  
(Aside aside note: it is also possible that I like receiving attention.  I just read a friend's blog where she posits that dancers need to be seen, respected, and recognized.  I think this is the kind of attention I seek.)

Pragmatists like to see how things work in practice. They enjoy experimenting with new ideas. They are practical, down to earth and like to solve problems. They appreciate the opportunity to try out what they have learned/are learning.

Pragmatists like:

• to see the relevance of their work
• to gain practical advantage from learning
• credible role models
• proven techniques
• activities to be real