“...are we condemned to be... these perpetually passive-yet participatory subjects, following commands as if they were our deepest wishes, fitting our dissensual impetus into well-measured coordinates of consensual good (or expected) behaviour, all for the sake of perpetuating the same old modes of conceiving participation and of performing transgressions?” (Lepecki, 2013, p.32)
With the above, Lepecki questions the very foundations of this project. I feel strongly about the work expressing interdependence, co-operation and peaceful collective behaviour. However, I have been questioning the role and need for consensual behaviour in the work. How much is disagreement and dissent needed in this group? Is it being suppressed? How does each dancer feel about it? Are we 'staging' a kind of 'co-ordinated public transgression'?
I have definitely been dealing mostly with consensual behaviours. Throughout the structured improvisational scores we practice a consensual allowing to be taken by the flow of the happening; we practiced reading the group's territory and being able to integrate with the group in a way that supports that particular territory, formation, dynamics and achieving an embodied sense of integrity. Whilst consensual dynamics has been important towards finding group integrity, as Lepecki asks, how do we “prevent the formation of a paralyzing..homogeneity”? (Lepecki, p.)
So far I was almost certain that all the explorations have not been dealing with practicing homogeneity. ….but maybe in some sense they have..(?)
What are the consequences of an ongoing and probably utopian agreement within a group? How long can it last and be sustained? Is there an individual desire for detachment and non co-operation? If not what fuels the ongoing co-operative desire?
“...there is a whole kinetics of consensuality predicated on all sorts of agitations. The kind of fixity implied in (and produced by) consensus is very different from active dwelling in intense stillness... to be in consensus is simply this: to fit the mold and to stay fit. It is to circulate not only because one is told (by whichever authority, real or fantastical) to circulate; but also to do so always in the proper mode of circulation (for instance in policed circulation where the kinetic command is to “Move along! There is nothing to see here!” as the cop says). Consensual kineticism means to move so not to stir things up; it means to create apparent critical and political agitation but only as long as, in the end, agitation keeps everything stale and in place. Properly. And fit.” (Lepecki, 2013, p.24)
Is what we're doing, our connected and playful dancing and wandering through public spaces, expressing a form of choreographed social dissent and rebellion that keeps the individuals pinned down by consensus and tricked into a controlled apparent agitation?
How much are the dancers 'stuck' in fulfilling the choreographic structure? How fixed is the structure?
“ how much in participating and by participating do we actually engage with a kind of moving that takes us no other place than where we are (always) already (properly) expected to arrive at?” (Lepecki, 2013, p.29)
I have not yet considered enough the role of dissent within the dynamic of the group. The way I have worked with the dancers so far has been towards creating a framework for consensual group behaviour. I have started to approach strategies to create conditions for 'agitation' which now seem to reflect the 'apparent agitation' that wants to keep things in place that Lepeki describes...and I am not sure I feel comfortable with the work reflecting this.
How can you involve others in your 'rebellion'?
This question that I have been engaging with, perhaps relates more to exploring different strategies to engage audiences and passers by with our activity. A key research focus of the project. Perhapsbe it is a question for each of the ten dancers to explore within the group. It might be a key staring point to engage further with individual agency, questioning consensual behaviour and challenging our 'apparent choreographed agitations'.
Are we always in agreement? To what extent does interdependence means we always have to agree on everything?
I look forward to having conversations on how the chorographic scores reflects our socio-political views, how it might relate to the 'consensual kineticism' of manoeuvred masses, the role dissent and agitation can have in the work and the embodied empowering and individual agency that it can generate. And whether it is a case of individual agency and dissent being explored vs the ongoing consensual group behaviour or if the two can coexist and feed each other into a process of group-renewal and ongoing shifting flow between stability and instability.