The Gymnastics of Thought: Elsa€¦ · gymnastics (for example Hedwig Kallmeyer, Elsa Gindler), rhythmic gymnastics (for example Émile Jaques- Dalcroze, Charlotte Pfeiffer or Nina

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041

197

Elsa Gindler, Nina Gorte, Charlotte Pfeffer, Gerda Alexander, Hedwig von Rohden and Louise Langgaard – these names all stand for the female side of the German movement for ‘body reform’ and Lebensreform, ‘life reform’, that in the early twentieth century propounded gymnastics as a way of exploring new kinds of thinking about bodily experience. What these women shared – to summarize very briefly – was an inten-tion to draw together psychological feeling, bodily experience, dance and musical elements into an all- embracing, free and creative way of life. This plan revolved about the body. After decades hidden away behind Christian and moralistic feelings of guilt, the body now became the theatre of utopian sociopolitical projects. It was to be educated to move in natural, hygienic ways, and correct posture would also pro-duce behavioural change more generally.1 Exercise and training became forms of knowledge, and to train the body was to train behaviour. Men like Émile Jaques- Dalcroze, Rudolf Bode and Alfred Müller became the stars of their respective ‘methods’, surrounded by a throng of mainly female disciples – this despite their attacks on the ‘feminization’ of the civilized world.2 They believed that the appropriate place for the rhyth-mic human being was within the community; only in the community could the egocentric individual’s ‘physical and intellectual impediments’, as Alfred Müller called them, be healed.3 Unlike in the United States, where the gymnastics movement overlapped with the movement for women’s rights, in Germany it argued against what Bode contemptu-ously termed ‘equalizing tendencies’ and harshly criticized the modern, self- determined woman.4

Yet beyond the ‘great men’, the women of rhythmics and gymnas-tics,5 too, developed methods – such as Sensory Awareness or Eutony – based on bodily knowledge. They did so not by invoking ‘community’,

9The Gymnastics of Thought: Elsa Gindler’s Networks of KnowledgeKatja Rothe

9781137462718_11_cha09.indd 1979781137462718_11_cha09.indd 197 7/29/2014 9:19:08 PM7/29/2014 9:19:08 PM

This file is to be used only for a purpose specified by Palgrave Macmillan, such as checking proofs, preparing an index,reviewing, endorsing or planning coursework/other institutional needs. You may store and print the file and share it withothers helping you with the specified purpose, but under no circumstances may the file be distributed or otherwise madeaccessible to any other third parties without the express prior permission of Palgrave Macmillan. Please contact [email protected] if you have any queries regarding use of the file.

Proof

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041

198 Katja Rothe

but within networks that were both locally situated (especially in Berlin) and globally active. Their methods arose and were passed on within these networks, often without being written down and without a ‘mas-ter theory’ becoming established. These models were, furthermore, less metaphysical or ideological than ‘practical’ in the best sense: they drew on the art of physical movement in the context of social, educational and therapeutic practice. Often emerging from dance or the Bauhaus milieu, these women’s forms of gymnastics and rhythmics were excluded from the sacred groves of art by their turn to the therapeutic, educational – in short, to the practical. Yet they ushered in innovative procedures, such as body psychotherapy or systemic therapy, that, in turn, were viewed with suspicion by the disciplines of psychiatry, psychoanalysis and clinical psychology. It is only since the 1960s and 1970s that these methods have become widely recognized. Today they are part of the regenerative rhythm of the holistically educated Western individual who uses relaxation exercises to recuperate from the work-ing day.

Despite this presence in the everyday life of the Western world, there is surprisingly little scholarship on the history of women’s gymnastics. Certainly, it is no easy task for a historian to retrace a network that gradually developed worldwide through personal relationships and local contacts, largely without written theory formation and by means of teaching, exercising, letters and conversations. Some of the already sparse documents were destroyed in the war, and others remain to be unearthed from the protagonists’ personal archives. This difficulty of historical contextualization and archivization is exacerbated by the form of knowledge that processes through these networks; namely, what might be described as practical knowledge. Practical knowledge, writes Andreas Reckwitz, is characterized by an ‘implicit, informal logic’, by anchorage in the social and in expertise, by materiality, by dependence on bodies and artefacts, and by a ‘tension between routinization and systematically grounded incalculabilities.’6 It is continually reorganized in the course of its application, admits of little or no reflection on its own history and, as a result, is studded with blind spots.

Rather than formalized methodologies and theories, then, the women pioneers of gymnastics deployed various forms of practical reasoning that were highly context- specific and capable of negotiating the disrup-tions of local situations. If this experiential knowledge was long consid-ered a ‘lower’ form of knowledge, barely worth the effort of historical research, today it surrounds us on all sides, whether in microbiology or in the culture of self- help. More than that, it is a democratic form


Proof

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041

Gymnastics of Thought 199

of knowledge,7 for by means of ‘best practice’, complex processes and phenomena can become accessible to a broader public in a popular and simplified form. Experiential knowledge needs no theoretical edifice; it just has to work. Nevertheless, these forms of practical knowledge are not innocent or without consequences. Quite the contrary: in the course of the twentieth century, they appear to have become part of a highly differentiated culture of self- optimization – examples would be not only exercise techniques such as Pilates and rhythmic gymnastics, but also forms of therapy such as psychodrama or Family Constellations and aptitude tests or assessment centre procedures. These are all tech-niques that arose in the early twentieth century to help the individual manage her or his own behaviour through self- awareness.

Writing the history of the women of gymnastics, in short, poses numerous challenges. The following discussion is an initial attempt first to describe a network of female practitioners, its emergence and devel-opment; second to describe the collective knowledge that processed in the network as practical knowledge, one that emerged, was passed on, and was transformed – and also archived (in the sense of a continual re- enactment) – in performance. Finally, I will describe this knowledge as knowledge which is fundamentally topological, and as such has a profound affinity with the network. The following questions arise: What does it mean to view rhythmic gymnastics as a way of thinking? And what about the movements that are proper to all ways of thinking? Are there other forms of thinking than thinking in concepts and as an autonomous subject?

In order to describe this network knowledge of female practitioners, I will focus my histories very sharply in terms of locality, time and per-sonalities: the first three decades of the twentieth century in Berlin, and the figure of Elsa Gindler.

Gymnastics as a form of knowledge

During the 1910s and 1920s, the German gymnastics movement was composed of very differing currents, including anatomically oriented gymnastics (for example Hedwig Kallmeyer, Elsa Gindler), rhythmic gymnastics (for example Émile Jaques- Dalcroze, Charlotte Pfeiffer or Nina Gorter), gymnastic dance (Isadora Duncan, Mary Wigman, Rudolf von Laban, Trudi Schoop), a gymnastics based on the Turnen physical education movement (Carl Loges) and gymnastics as Lebensreform (the Loheland School: Louise Langgaard, Hedwig von Rohden).8 Alongside the ‘great men’, like Émile Jaques- Dalcroze and Carl Loges, women


Proof

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041

200 Katja Rothe

too left their mark from the very beginning.9 In the United States, Genevieve Stebbins continued the work of the French actor François Delsarte, considered the founder of bodywork, to develop her own form of gymnastic education. Stebbins’s student Bess Mensendieck, a Dutch- American physician who studied medicine in Zurich,10 established her own system of gymnastics based on anatomy; her book Körperkultur des Weibes (‘The Physical Culture of Woman’) appeared in 1906. Hedwig Kallmeyer, another student of Genevieve Stebbins, created ‘harmonic gymnastics’. Kallmeyer took her cue from Ancient Greece, and com-bined the imitation of particular poses and assumed movement sequences with breathing exercises, which together would lead to the attainment of physical awareness.11

Berlin was one of the hubs of alternative models of gymnastics that were rooted in dance and music.12 It was there that the sisters Elizabeth and Isadora Duncan opened their school of dance in 1904, and the Dalcroze School (Toni Zander, Marie Adama van Scheltema, Anna Epping) was also based in Berlin, as was the Berlin Dalcroze Institute run by Nina Gorter. The Berlin State School of Music offered courses in rhythmic gymnastics with Charlotte Pfeffer; among those attending was Gerda Alexander, the founder of Eutony.13 Berlin was also the centre of Elsa Gindler’s work. In 1917, Gindler founded the ‘Seminar for Harmonic Physical Training’ (Seminar für harmonische Körperausbildung) in the city. With Elsa Gindler, the ‘grandmother of somatic psychotherapy’,14 we see gymnastics shift towards therapy, a move that can often be observed in connection with reform gymnas-tics, for example in the work of Gerda Alexander, Hedwig Kallmeyer or Charlotte Pfeffer. Pfeffer, a teacher of rhythmic gymnastics at the State School of Music, developed rhythmics for the fields of early child-hood education and therapeutic pedagogy.15 One of the founders of psychomotor education, she brought the concept of psychomotorics to educational theory, introducing the term ‘psychomotor education’ in 1941, then ‘psychomotor therapeutic pedagogy’ (Psychomotorische Heilerziehung) in 1955.

The extension of gymnastics into educational and therapeutic practice brought its protagonists accusations of having oversimpli-fied the artistic substance of their methods for the sake of pragmatic applications. There have been claims of a ‘feminization’16 of rhythmics within pedagogy, and in his 1975 sociological study of dance teach-ing in Germany, Helmut Günther asked whether rhythmics was ‘only for women, children and the sick?’ Günther called for a retreat from ‘socializing moral education’ and a return to the ‘liberating education


Proof

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041


of the mind [Bildung]’ and dance.17 In contrast, I wish to show through the example of Elsa Gindler how the women of gymnastics established a new form of practical reasoning, a collective form of practical knowl-edge (and ultimately a special form of practical anthropology) which, at this point in time, was probably only possible for women.18

Elsa Gindler studied harmonic gymnastics with Hedwig Kallmeyer, and from autumn 1912 worked as a gymnastics teacher.19 She pro-pounded a gymnastics that was influenced by Lebensreform and strictly demarcated from the Turnen tradition, using no apparatus or equipment and querying the status of the teacher. The body’s rhythmic movement should not be directed by somebody else: rather, each individual’s own ‘inner’ rhythm must be developed on the basis of his or her particular needs.20 Gindler thus refuted the objectives of traditional gymnastics, whether athletic, physiotherapeutic or orthopaedic. Nevertheless, in 1925 she joined with representatives of other schools of thought to found the German Gymnastics League (Deutscher Gymnastikbund), of which she was the first president until 1933.

Gindler was by inclination a naturalist,21 and did not construct exer-cises or even, strictly speaking, a method but carried out ‘experiments’ in pursuit of the question ‘Where do we end up if we simply let things happen unimpeded?’22 Elsa Gindler’s rhythmic gymnastics made bodily experience into a form of knowledge, within an experimental setting in which experiences through the body, breathing and concentration were intended to culminate in a philosophical stance of ‘letting be, of composure, of being able to relinquish oneself’,23 a form of somatic and philosophical understanding.24 Rudolf von Laban also emphasized that rhythmic gymnastics was a form of thinking:

It is perhaps not too bold to introduce here the idea of think-ing in terms of movement as contrasted with thinking in words. Movement- thinking could be considered as a gathering of impres-sions of happenings in one’s own mind, for which nomenclature is lacking.25

Gymnastics as a philosophical form has a long tradition in Asia, but also in classical antiquity. In Ancient Greece, physical training (Greek: γυμναστική [τέχνη] ‘gymnastics’; γυμνάζω ‘to exercise’, ‘to train’, ‘to school’; γυμνάσιον ‘gymnasium’, ‘school’) was considered part of a rounded education for young men. Women teachers of gymnastics such as Kallmeyer and Duncan also made use of these ancient proto-types.26 Elements of Asian philosophy can be traced in almost all forms


Proof

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041

202 Katja Rothe

of gymnastics, even in traditional, anatomically oriented gymnastics. In the mid- nineteenth century Per Henrik Ling, the European father of medical gymnastics, developed his ‘Swedish gymnastics’ system by combining Asian gymnastic methods and Chinese acupuncture with European mechanistic thinking.27 Ling was a crucial influence for medical gymnastics in Germany as well.28 Europeanized versions of East Asian thought also left their mark on Elsa Gindler’s work. Well into the 1920s, she was influenced by Otto Hanisch ( pen- name Otoman Zar- Adusht Ha’nish) and his Mazdaznan, a religious doctrine that brought together Zoroastrian, Christian and Hindu or Tantric elements in the theosophical tradition of Helena Blavatsky. Hanisch also adopted ele-ments of yoga into his theory of breathing.29 Many of the first students at Gindler’s Institute in the 1910s were drawn from the Mazdaznan movement, and she was frequently invited to Mazdaznan conferences.30

However, rather than retracing the lines of classical, Eastern, theo-sophical and esoteric thought in Elsa Gindler’s work (an intriguing and worthwhile project, but beyond the scope of the present chapter), in the following I restrict myself to describing Gindler’s research as a form of practical experimentation. My argument is that this experimentation, within a network of Gindler’s students, gave rise to knowledge that was formed in a process of whispered transmission reminiscent of the game ‘Chinese whispers’. I will tentatively call it ‘Gindler knowledge’.

Gindler’s research and Gindler knowledge

Elsa Gindler wrote only one lecture, ‘Die Gymnastik des Berufsmenschen’ (‘Gymnastics for the Working Person’) of 1926, albeit in two versions,31 but no other scholarly texts.32 Much of Gindler’s correspondence, work-ing material and other documentation from the 1920s and 1930s was destroyed during bombing in 1945.33 Sophie Ludwig, a close friend of Gindler’s who lived and worked with her in Berlin, gathered some of the remaining papers and published them.34 The Heinrich Jacoby- Elsa Gindler Foundation35 collected further material and published a 1945 introductory course transcribed and revised by Heinrich Jacoby,36 a personal report by a participant in Gindler’s summer courses between 1953 and 1959, including Gindler’s notes,37 and student interviews and reports about their experiences in Elsa Gindler’s courses.38

If we are prepared to grapple with the complications of oral his-tory, then Gindler’s work can be reconstructed rather well. However, this process involves reports at third or even fourth hand, rumours, memories and memory lapses, anecdotes and retellings that, together,


Proof

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041


produce knowledge of Elsa Gindler’s work in the transformative itera-tion of ‘Whisper Down the Lane’ – knowledge that is passed from one person to the next without its origins necessarily being obvious or remembered.39 Such ‘Gindler knowledge’ cannot claim to refer back to an original source; it is a garrulous knowledge, in many cases generated in physical experience, through practice. Elsa Gindler’s thinking can ‘only’ be reconstructed in mindfulness of these transformations and deformations.

As early as the interwar period, epistemological research identified knowledge of this kind – knowledge that is disseminated through webs and networks – in laboratory science as well. Ludwik Fleck’s 1935 study Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact described an ‘intracollective communication of thoughts’40 within a heterogeneous ensemble of equal, collaborating members of the most varied professions and lay people. Fleck investigated ‘thought collectives’41 – social processes of knowledge generation – and stressed the collective, localized nature of all scientific knowledge. Describing the laboratory sciences as driven by the process of trying out and tinkering with apparently ‘hard’ or scientific facts, he accentuated the nature of scientific research as an act of ‘emplaced and embodied thought’.42 But Fleck did not examine the emergence of the networks in which practical knowledge is gener-ated, nor describe the knowledge that emerges in this way as ‘network knowledge’. This is exactly what I propose: ‘Gindler knowledge’ may also be characterized as a viral, network knowledge. Even today, it spreads globally outwards from Elsa Gindler and the contacts she made in Berlin, gathering more and more nodes and links, more and more new methods and procedures based on Gindler’s work.

In Berlin Gindler met numerous people who in subsequent decades went on to refine their own methods and processes through her influ-ence, especially in the direction of body psychotherapy.43 Lore Perls, married to Fritz Perls – both of them among the founders of Gestalt therapy – was a student of Gindler’s; Klara Fenichel and the Austrian psychoanalyst Otto Fenichel met Gindler in Berlin. Wilhelm Reich’s second partner Elsa Lindenberg and Reich’s daughter both studied with Elsa Gindler. It was under the influence of Gindler’s work that Reich, considered the founder of body psychotherapy, created vegetotherapy.44 Charlotte Selver, another of Gindler’s students, later coined the term Sensory Awareness to describe her own extension of ‘Gindler knowl-edge’. Ruth Cohen, founder of ‘ theme- centred interaction’, was born in 1912 in Berlin, and attended courses there with another of Gindler’s pupils, Carola Spitz.45 Helmuth Stolze’s ‘Concentrative Movement


Proof

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041

204 Katja Rothe

Therapy’ was also influenced by Gindler, via the dancer Gertrud Falke Heller. The list could be continued. By now it is possible to speak of a fourth generation of the network, although in many methods of body-work or body psychotherapy Gindler is no longer mentioned by name; her influence is only perceptible in the use of particular concepts, such as, and the story of a particular person’s training. This non- naming is another typical feature of network knowledge.46

It is striking that as ‘Gindler knowledge’ unfolded in the third gen-eration of the network, there was a professionalization in the fields of psychoanalysis, psychotherapy and body psychotherapy that cannot be observed in the first two generations of Gindler knowledge. On the con-trary, Ulfried Geuter, a German historian of body psychotherapy,refers to a ‘hidden history of the work of women that has hitherto barely been acknowledged in the historiography of psychoanalysis and psychother-apy, because these women, apart from Ruth Cohen, did not create their own psychotherapeutic systems and, like Gindler herself, published almost nothing about their work.’47

Indeed, Elsa Gindler and many other women involved in gymnastics showed no interest in wresting recognition from the established sci-ences and therapies. Gindler did not regard her practice as a method, and did not give it a name. A similar stance emerges for the Swiss dancer and dance therapist Trudi Schoop in an interview with Hadassa Moscovici:

I never wanted to have a school, in the sense of putting forth a method and saying ‘This is how it’s done and no differently.’ That just isn’t my way. It goes against my whole nature. And so I never did it. In my opinion, methods are there to be forgotten. Something new would have to emerge out of them.48

She continues:

Each person must try to find out what’s normal for him and what is the right thing for him. […] And then you simply can’t talk about technique. It will be different every time. That’s why I never trained anybody. I wouldn’t presume to. At most I would say: Try to be as kind as possible. That’s it. As good as possible.49

For Schoop, methods are individual routes to finding self- knowledge; they change in the course of their application and adapt to each new context. Elsa Gindler worked in a similar way.


Proof

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041


The gender of knowledge

Geuter identifies a gender gap here resulting from different relationships to psychoanalysis. The men tended to come from psychoanalysis and then turn to the body, whereas the women started from bodily practice and approached psychotherapy from there.50 Certainly, it seems mainly to have been women who carried out practical work while their male colleagues attended to theoretical embedment: Wilhelm Reich and Heinrich Jacoby are excellent examples. It is, however, also important to note that the women involved in rhythmics were all self- employed and that their access to the male- dominated employment market was fraught with difficulty. Only since the late nineteenth century had uni-versity study even been possible for women in Europe,51 and it required the kind of financial resources that a woman like Elsa Gindler did not have.52 The proponents of gymnastics nevertheless chose the path of independence and professional life, one being taken by more and more bourgeois women at the time.53 But women’s livelihoods as freelancers were increasingly precarious. In 1920s Berlin, for example, there was one music teacher for every 1,000 inhabitants; music teachers were mainly women and the profession was extremely badly paid.54 For this reason alone, specializing in rhythmic gymnastics improved women’s career opportunities. The gender gap should thus also be considered in terms of hard economic facts. In addition, women’s exclusion from the traditional networks of scholars and professionals meant they were obliged to establish new, different forms of networks – networks that could be accessed irrespective of accidents of birth and gender. Building up a web of personal and working relationships, supporters and men-tors was a new task for these women, and one vital to their survival. I therefore propose not to search for the ‘forgotten stake’ of women in rhythmics within the history of medicine, psychoanalysis, psycho-therapy and body psychotherapy,55 but rather to tell their story as a concatenation of living network histories. And the concept of network may be applied not only to the construction of informal systems of assistance, but also to the work of Elsa Gindler herself.

Working groups and self- education

Gindler regarded her courses as ‘working groups’ in which, ‘by interven-ing and by making themselves vulnerable’, all the participants contrib-uted to ‘understanding the laws of human existence.’56 Gindler’s point was that all those involved were part of an experimental system within


Proof

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041

206 Katja Rothe

which, through the practice of daily self- exploration, they developed a bodily stance of research. Gindler described this stance as tasten, ‘sens-ing one’s way’.57 Early in her career, during the 1910s, Gindler worked with the imitation of classical Greek statues – the beauty of the poses was to be transmitted to the imitator.58 Later, she applied her tactile explorations directly to the organism (I will return to this below).59 The concepts that Gindler adopts to describe these tentative stances of exploration are attentiveness, composure, and perception. Knowledge then ‘happens’ within the self- experimental setting. In her notes, Gindler describes this research procedure as follows: ‘ascertain what befalls you when trying out.’60

For Gindler (and for the women of the gymnastics movement more generally), the focus is thus not on the thinking, cognizing, inquiring ego, nor on the exercising, communicating group, but on the collective self and the participatory, tactile exploration of experience and percep-tion, the exploration of the self within a network of other explorers. Here, thinking or knowing emanates not solely from the researching self, but also from the practice of bodily movement and of breathing. Indeed, the subject seems only to emerge with the incorporation of bodies into the practices of movement. Only by ‘ascertaining what befalls’ it ‘when trying out’61 does the subject arrive at a concept of itself. Gindler initiates, mediates and curates a process of self- formation and self- education.62

Gindler encouraged her pupils to continue their behavioural studies in their daily lives. The objective was to adapt behaviour to the organ-ism as the source of perception and knowledge. For Gindler, relaxed and wakeful perception is an enquiring stance that cannot be directed by an instructor but must be acquired by practice – a stance of self- exploration that is different for each individual.63 This researching stance is a bodily stance, and it is networked with the body of the researcher. In Gindler’s thinking, the rhythmic exploration of movement behaviour can lead to the assumption of a research stance that she once characterized as reagi-erbereit werden, becoming ready to respond.64 In 1939, Heinrich Jacoby wrote: ‘This was an attempt to educate starting from the body, in which the conscious encounter with the ordering tendencies of the organism, latent in every human being, was made the foundation of all work.’65

Gindler’s work was directed at ‘acquiring for oneself an attentive rela-tionship to the ordering and regenerating process of one’s own body, on the basis of a conscious experience of one’s state’, as Sophie Ludwig put it.66 In that process, Gindler did not predefine some ideal state or particular perception as her objective; neither was she interested in


Proof

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041


diagnosing particular psychological states or even disorders. Very fun-damentally, she was concerned with ‘opening the organism for experi-ence’.67 To this end, the organism would regenerate itself through its own resources, by imitating particular gestures and breathing correctly, to produce a state of equilibrium between tension and relaxation.68

Topology and the organism

As Heller points out, Gindler worked with a notion of the organism as ‘complex organization’ borrowed from Otto Hanisch,69 whereby the organism ‘particularizes itself and draws out numerous intricate asso-ciations in the course of a lifetime.’70 In this sense, the organism might be described as a complex organization of networks that each develops individually and in line with its specific environment. In Gindler’s experimental system, this development can in turn be influenced by rhythmic self- research. Gindler’s work ‘harmonizes’ or synchronizes, so to speak, the various different dimensions of the networked organism.71

However, this notion of the organism as a balancing system drew not only on Hanisch, but also on a topological view of both physiologi-cal and psychological processes that was also becoming established in the ‘hard’ sciences at the time.72 A milestone in this respect was Kurt Goldstein’s Der Aufbau des Organismus of 1934, translated in 1939 as The Organism: A Holistic Approach to Biology Derived from Pathological Data in Man. Goldstein, a German- American neurologist and psychiatrist (and incidentally a cousin of Ernst Cassirers), drew on his early research in Frankfurt and Berlin with the Gestalt psychologists Adhémar Gelb, Max Wertheimer, Wolfgang Köhler and Kurt Koffka. He established a topological approach to brain research, criticizing the topographical approach that divides the brain into areas and studies pathological deficits. Instead, he proposed to regard the brain as a system of the organism as a whole that tries, when faced with disruptions and inju-ries, to reestablish an organismic balance. For Goldstein, in other words, a brain function cannot be localized in particular areas, but belongs to the organism. After an injury, the organism as a whole, in its confronta-tion with the environment, strives for organismic self- regulation. Both Goldstein and Gindler assume that the organism aspires to an ‘“aver-age” state of expectation’ which ‘corresponds to its nature, which is “adequate” to it.’73 It is not particularly surprising that Goldstein was also concerned with the notion of the organism’s self- actualization.74 For him, there was no state of normality or abnormality; each organism strives for its own equilibrium.75


Proof

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041

208 Katja Rothe

Gindler certainly did not study Goldstein’s work, and is more likely to have been familiar with psychoanalytical approaches.76 There is nev-ertheless a connection in the person of Laura Perls, a pupil of Gindler’s who also studied with Goldstein in Berlin and wrote her PhD under Adhémar Gelb’s supervision.77 Once again, these are not direct influ-ences, but rather ripple effects of the Gindler network in Berlin.78

Elsa Gindler – a curator of knowledge

As I hope has become clear, Elsa Gindler’s work opened up a dimension of network thinking and of practitioners that has not inscribed itself into the written history of science. This is a form of knowledge that is produced and documented in the performance of movements, exercises and research stances, one that is passed on and transformed from course to course, from student to student, in the mode of Whisper Down the Lane. I have described ‘Gindler knowledge’ as network knowledge on several levels: from the point of view of the actors, methods and schools; from the point of view of the exercises; and from the point of view of concepts of the organism. Within these topologies of knowl-edge, Elsa Gindler cannot be regarded as a master thinker. Instead, she is an orchestrator of knowledge, a curator of shared somatic research. As a curator, one who takes care (from the Latin curare), she adopts a different role from that of the researcher as a critical intellectual seeking elucidation and revealing hidden mechanisms.79 A curator of knowl-edge arranges reception stimuli and invites her students to participate as researchers in an act of research, an exploration of their own resources and capabilities.80

Once combined with the rise in the ‘wellness model of human nature’,81 the goal of mobilizing psychological potentials that, as Reckwitz argues, ‘in principle are inexhaustible’82 is open to criticism as marking a ‘structural change in psychological technologies of sub-jectification’83 in the twentieth century. If this is our assessment of Elsa Gindler’s work, we can safely consign that work to obscurity again. If, however, we are willing to probe more deeply into ‘Gindler knowledge’ as network knowledge, then new possibilities come into view: possi-bilities for understanding thought as a collective, implicit, non- verbal, habitual and somatic process. The questions that then arise have less to do with the substance of a particular methodology or system of body psychotherapy than with the features of a practical knowledge that is generated not by a research subject but by practice within networks, a practice that processes implicit knowledge and reorganizes the senses.84


Proof

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041


Elsa Gindler’s network knowledge is, then, an effect and product of collective, bodily and theatrical practices.85 Gindler knowledge takes shape in the sequence of enactment, re- enactment, and also preenactment – the construction of other possible future models.86 The gymnastics of thought propounded by Elsa Gindler enables knowl-edge to become practical. At the same time, it brings the thinking and guiding body onto the scene: a body that requires the group as its feedback system. More generally, the group seems to be both the pre-condition of Gindler knowledge and its forum. The group constitutes the network that, as a community, experiences Gindler knowledge and passes it on; and the group both stimulates and observes the work of self- exploration.

The gymnastics of thought that Gindler initiated can, then, be regarded as a situated, social practice that – while in each case delimited in time and place – spreads globally in its network. Donna Haraway has described this form of knowledge as a feminist knowledge.87 She regards ‘situated knowledge’ as one that radically queries all phallogocentric knowledge claims and knowing subjects and addresses the technologi-cal, media, bodily, nonhuman, power- political, institutional and other conditions of knowledge. Situated knowledge calls for modesty in every claim to know. It asks that the material conditions of the known be laid bare, that the knower reflects upon herself as an observer and makes herself visible for others as such. In these terms, Gindler knowledge may be described as feminist knowledge.

However, Haraway always conceives of a situated knowledge as one that is communicated – one that is shared and that is mediated by language. In the case of Elsa Gindler, we find knowledge that is not linguistically mediated, not subject- generated, that reorganizes itself relationally within practices and networks. The Belgian philosopher of science Isabelle Stengers, picking up on Donna Haraway’s ideas, has pro-posed an ‘ecology of practices’ that views every practice as networked and contextualized, yet also singular and locally effective. Using this notion, we might describe Elsa Gindler’s practical work as a ‘science of multiplicities, disparate causalities and unintentional creations of meaning’ that are collective and not necessarily articulated by language alone.88 With this ecological definition of practices, the definition of critique changes as well. Looking at Gindler, we do not see the pos-ture of the critical intellectual who reveals, who dissects the structures of power. She exemplifies a different role for the critic: as someone who assembles, who cares, who curates, who takes up the stance of ‘ preenactment’.


Proof

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041

210 Katja Rothe

According to Bruno Latour, it is not the gesture of revelation but the shared care for and connectedness with things – the ‘matters of concern’ – that must now make up the critic’s stance.89 Latour sees concern as a new critical practice that does not rely on Enlightenment rationality but makes networking into a critical and a realist attitude. My proposal is to approach Elsa Gindler’s network knowledge in exactly that sense, as a critical knowledge that not only gathers but also invents. In preenactment, as a form of the ‘untended’ and thus unboundaried transformations of collective, relational knowledge, an imaginative power surges forth and – parasitically, fictionally, irrationally, unconsciously – gives rise to new practices that cannot call on the authority of a master theory.90 In networks, this dynamic of preenactment always also seems to be a particular technique of ‘ancestry’, of reflection on one’s own origin, a multiple origin that cannot be made to stand still and that becomes increasingly differentiated and complex as the preenactment proceeds. Nevertheless, preenactment as a fictional ancestry introduces responsibility for one’s own history into the politics of concern and of situated, collective knowledge. It is a complex and entangled history of people’s own interest, their own emotion and vulnerability, their own conviction and self- invention.

Notes

This chapter is translated from German by Kate Sturge.

1. Huschka, Sabine (2002): Moderner Tanz. Konzepte, Stile, Utopien, Reinbek: Rowohlt, p. 87.

2. Wedemeyer- Kolwe, Bernd (2004): Der neue Mensch. Körperkultur im Kaiserreich und in der Weimarer Republik, Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann, p. 108. Here and throughout, all translations from the German are my own unless otherwise attributed.

3. Ibid., p. 110.4. Ibid., p. 108.5. Rhythmics refers to training in rhythm and music, whereas gymnastics is a

more general term covering all rhythmical physical exercise. 6. Reckwitz, Andreas (2003): ‘Grundelemente einer Theorie sozialer Praktiken.

Eine sozialtheoretische Perspektive’, Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 282– 301, here p. 282. See also Reckwitz, Andreas (2002): ‘Toward a Theory of Social Practices. A Development in Culturalist Theorizing’, European Journal of Social Theory, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 243– 263.

7. On this point, see Macho, Thomas (2010): ‘Was tun? Skizzen zur Wissensgeschichte der Beratung’, in Thomas Brandstetter, Claus Pias, and Sebastian Vehlken (eds): Think Tanks. Die Beratung der Gesellschaft, Zurich: Diaphanes, pp. 59– 85.

8. Urban, Elke (2001): ‘Rhythmische Gymnastik für Frauen – eine andere Strömung der Frauenbildung’, in Paul Ciupke and Karin Derichs- Kunstmann


Proof

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041


(eds): Zwischen Emanzipation und ‘besonderer Kulturaufgabe der Frau’, Frauenbildung in der Geschichte der Erwachsenenbildung, Essen: Klartext, pp. 180– 195, here pp. 186– 187.

9. See Moscovici, Hadassa K. (1989): Vor Freude tanzen, vor Jammer halb in Stücke gehn. Pionierinnen der Körpertherapie, Frankfurt a. M.: Luchterhand, pp. 7– 38.

10. Switzerland was an international pioneer in the admission of women to university studies. Between 1860 and 1870, women were admitted to uni-versity courses and examinations in Zurich, Berne, Geneva, Lausanne and Neuchâtel. See http://www.unigeschichte.unibas.ch/akteure/frauenstudium/ anfaenge- des- frauenstudiums (last accessed 8 October 2013). For more detail see Wecker, Regina (2007): ‘Die Schweiz, das europäische Land des Frauenstudiums’, in Ilse Nagelschmidt(ed.): 100 Jahre Frauenstudium an der Alma Mater Lipsiensis, Leipzig: Leipziger Universitäts- Verlag, pp. 235– 252; Dickmann, Elisabeth and Schöck- Quinteros, Eva (eds), (2000): Barrieren und Karrieren. Die Anfänge des Frauenstudiums in Deutschland. Dokumentationsband der Konferenz ‘100 Jahre Frauen in der Wissenschaft’, Berlin: Trafo- Verlag Weist.

11. Moscovici, Vor Freude tanzen, p. 19.12. Geuter, Ulfried (2004): ‘Die Anfänge der Körperpsychotherapie in Berlin’, in

Thomas Müller (ed.): Psychotherapie und Körperarbeit in Berlin. Geschichte und Praktiken der Etablierung, Husum: Matthiesen, pp. 167– 181.

13. See also Rothe, Katja (2014): ‘Die Rhythmikerinnen an der Berliner Hochschule für Musik. Zur Geschichte praktischen Wissens’, in Dörte Schmidt and Christine Siegert (eds): Klavierunterricht und andere Formen der Pädagogik […], die einstmals der bürgerlichen Produktion höherer Töchter dienten. Akademische Kunstausbildung und Frauenstudium, Berlin: UdK- Verlag (forthcoming).

14. Weaver, Judyth O. (2006): ‘The Influence of Elsa Gindler – Ancestor of Sensory Awareness’, http://judythweaver.com/writings/ the- influence- of- elsa- gindler- ancestor- of- sensory- awareness (last accessed 8 October 2013) and Weaver, Judyth O. (2004): ‘The Influence of Elsa Gindler on Somatic Pyschotherapy and on Charlotte Selver’, USA Body Psychotherapy Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 38– 47. Also Geuter, ‘Die Anfänge der Körperpsychotherapie’, p. 168.

15. Pfeffer worked in Berlin in the 1920s, training kindergarten and nursery teachers. Forced into exile by the Nazis, in Naples and Rome she began to use her method therapeutically, especially in work with disabled children. See Hürtgen- Busch, Songrid (1996): Die Wegbereiterinnen der rhythmisch- musikalischen Erziehung in Deutschland, Frankfurt a. M.: dipa, pp. 192– 196, 214– 220.

16. Fuchs, Peter (1967): Musik in der Grundschule, Stuttgart: Klett.17. Günther, Helmut (1975): Tanzunterricht in Deutschland. Eine kultursoziologis-

che Studie, Berlin: Arbeitskreis für Tanz im Bundesgebiet, p. 18.18. An anthropology of movement, see Bayertz, Kurt (2012): Der aufrechte Gang.

Eine Geschichte des anthropologischen Denkens, Munich: Beck.19. Ludwig, Sophie (2002): Wahrnehmen, was wir empfinden. Elsa Gindler – von

ihrem Leben und Wirken, Hamburg: Christians, p. 18.20. Geuter, Ulfried; Heller, Michel C.; and Weaver, Judyth O. (2009): Elsa Gindler

and Her Influence on Wilhelm Reich and Body Psychotherapy, http://judyth-weaver.com/writings/ elsa- gindler- and- her- influence- on- wilhelm- reich- and- body- psychotherapy (last accessed 8 October 2013).


Proof

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041

212 Katja Rothe

21. Moscovici, Vor Freude tanzen, p. 20.22. Elsa Gindler quoted in: ibid., pp. 20– 22.23. Elsa Gindler in course notes dated 1954, in: Ludwig, Wahrnehmen, was wir

empfinden, p. 172.24. On this, see Hengstenberg, Elfriede (1985): ‘Elsa Gindler’, The Charlotte Selver

Foundation Bulletin, Vol. 12, pp. 11– 13.25. Laban, Rudolf (1950): ‘Introduction’, in: The Mastery of Movement on the

Stage, London: MacDonald and Evans, p. 15.26. See also Heller, Michael C. (2012): Body Psychotherapy: History, Concepts, and

Methods, New York: W.W. Norton, pp. 290f.27. Ibid., p. 291.28. Schöler, Julia Helene (2005): Über die Anfänge der Schwedischen Heilgymnastik

in Deutschland – ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Krankengymnastik im 19. Jahrhundert, PhD diss., Westfälischen Wilhelms- Universität Münster, http://miami. uni- muenster.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/ Derivate- 2865/diss_schoeler.pdf (last accessed 8 October 2013).

29. Geuter et al., Elsa Gindler and Her Influence. On Hanisch, see Linse, Ulrich (2001): ‘Mazdaznan – die Rassereligion vom arischen Friedensreich’, in: Stefanie v. Schnurbein and Justus H. Ulbricht (eds): Völkische Religion und Krisen der Moderne. Entwürfe ‘arteigener’ Glaubensssysteme seit der Jahrhundertwende, Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann. Gindler was also in close contact with the breathing instructors, Clara Schlaffhorst and Hedwig Andersen, see: Ludwig, Wahrnehmen, was wir empfinden, p. 33.

30. Ludwig, Wahrnehmen, was wir empfinden, pp. 11– 36.31. Gindler gave the lecture in 1926 for the Düsseldorf exhibition ‘Health,

Social Work and Physical Exercise’, and again in 1931 at the general meet-ing of the German Gymnastics League. The two versions differ, as Heinrich Jacoby collaborated on the second one. A close study of the differences and overlaps would certainly provide insight into the evolution of Gindler’s ideas, but space precludes such a study here. The two texts are reproduced in Ludwig, Wahrnehmen, was wir empfinden, pp. 83– 93 (1926 version) and pp. 94– 125 (1931 version).

32. Cornell, William F. (2008): ‘Self in Action. The Bodily Basis of Self- Organization’, in Francis Sommer Anderson (ed.): Bodies in Treatment, New York: Routledge, pp. 29– 50, here p. 37.

33. Ludwig, Wahrnehmen, was wir empfinden, p. 62.34. See ibid., p. ?.35. www.jgstiftung.de. The Foundation’s premises also house the papers of

Heinrich Jacoby, Elsa Gindler and Sophie Ludwig.36. Jacoby, Heinrich (2004): Jenseits von ‘Begabt’ und ‘Unbegabt.’ Zweckmäßige

Fragestellung und zweckmäßiges Verhalten – Schlüssel für die Entfaltung des Menschen. Einführungskurs 1945, 6th ed., ed. by Sophie Ludwig, Hamburg: Christians. Heinrich Jacoby also published the documentation of a course held in Zurich in 1954/55: Jacoby, Heinrich (1989): Erziehen – Unterrichten – Erarbeiten. Aus Kursen in Zürich 1954/55, ed. by Sophie Ludwig with the Heinrich Jacoby- Elsa Gindler- Stiftung, Hamburg: Christians.

37. Haag, Marianne and Rohloff, Birgit (eds) (2006): Arbeiten bei Elsa Gindler. Notizen Elsa Gindlers und Berichte einer Teilnehmerin, Berlin: Heinrich Jacoby- Elsa Gindler- Stiftung.


Proof

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041


38. For example the contributions by the Fenichels, Heller and Hengstenberg, all in Zeitler, Peggy (ed.) (1991): Erinnerungen an Elsa Gindler, Munich: Cramer, Klett and Zeitler. The sources on many other female proponents of rhythmics appear to be similar. See the interviews collected in Johnson, Don Hanlon (ed.) (1995): Bone, Breath, and Gesture. Practices of Embodiment, Berkeley (CA): North Atlantic Books.

39. ‘As practitioners often have little historical understanding, they rarely know the origin and the course of what they are learning in a series of programs. For example, an exercise taught by Elsa Gindler was taught to Moshe Feldenkrais, who taught it to one of George Downing’s teachers, who then taught it to a student who is today trained in body psychotherapy. This exer-cise was probably transformed on such a journey, and the last colleague in this chain rarely knows that he does exercise originally designed by Gindler.’ Heller, Body Psychotherapy, pp. 294– 295.

40. Fleck, Ludwik (1979): Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, trans. by Fred Bradley and Thaddeus J. Trenn, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 116.

41. Ibid., pp. 38– 51. See the detailed discussion in Giesecke, Birgit (ed.) (2008): Werkstätten des Möglichen 1930– 1936. L. Fleck, E. Husserl., R. Musil, L. Wittgenstein, Würzburg: Königshausen and Neumann.

42. Rheinberger, Hans- Jörg (2003): ‘Wissensräume und experimentelle Praxis’, in: Helmar Schramm, Hans- Christian v. Herrmann, Florian Nelle; Wolfgang Schäffner, Henning Schmidgen, and Bernhad Siegert (eds): Bühnen des Wissens. Interferenzen zwischen Wissenschaft und Kunst, Berlin: Dahlem University Press, pp. 366– 382, here 368. Michael Polanyi also investigates the embodied aspects of knowledge generation. See Polanyi, Michael (1967): The Tacit Dimension, London (UK): Routledge and Kegan Paul. Although it did not appear until the 1960s, it is based on Polanyi’s experiences in the 1920s at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physical Chemistry and Electrochemistry in Berlin.

43. See Geuter, ‘Die Anfänge der Körperpsychotherapie’, pp. 167– 181.44. See Geuter et al., Elsa Gindler and Her Influence.45. See ibid.; also Cohn, Ruth (1984): ‘Ein Ansatz zur Psychosomatischen Analyse’,

in Helmuth Stolze (ed.): Die Konzentrative Bewegungstherapie. Grundlagen und Erfahrungen, Berlin: Mensch und Leben, pp. 248– 259, here 248.

46. Weaver, ‘The Influence of Elsa Gindler’.47. Geuter, ‘Die Anfänge der Körperpsychotherapie’, p. 170.48. Schoop, Trudi (1989): ‘Tanztherapie’, in: Moscovici (1989), pp. 157– 186,

here, p. 183.49. Ibid., pp. 184– 185.50. Geuter, Ulfried (1999): Eine Psychotherapie, die berührt – Streit um den

körperlichen Ausdruck von Gefühlen bei der Behandlung von seelisch Kranken, in: Süddeutsche Zeitung, 12 October 1999; Trautmann- Voigt, Sabine (2003): ‘Über die Aneignung des Körpers in der Tanztherapie und die Scham mancher Denker’, Psychoanalyse & Körper, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 75– 102.

51. See note 10.52. Gindler wanted to study medicine, but could not afford to; her father was

a blacksmith. She took various jobs in industry and commerce before train-ing for the retail trade. In early 1913, she first temporarily taught Hedwig


Proof

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041

214 Katja Rothe

Kallmeyer’s seminar, then, in October 1913, opened the ‘Institute for Harmonic Gymnastics Luise Bialonsky and Elsa Gindler.’ Before long she and Luise Bialonsky parted ways. The Second World War sorely tested Elsa Gindler’s institute because of the lack of participants. Nevertheless, from 1917 she led her own ‘Seminar for Harmonic Body Training’, certified to train women to teach rhythmic gymnastics. See Ludwig, Wahrnehmen, was wir empfinden, pp. 11– 41.

53. Hürtgen- Busch, Songrid (2003): ‘Denn Ihre Methode ist unser Leben. Der Erhalt der Methode Jaques- Dalcroze in Deutschland durch das Lebenswerk seiner ersten Schülerinnen’, in: Stefan Gies, Christine Straumer, and; Daniel Zwiener (eds): Dalcroze 2000, Dresden: M. Sandstein, pp. 22– 28, here 23– 24; Hürtgen- Busch, Die Wegbereiterinnen der, pp. 33– 34.

54. Hürtgen- Busch, Die Wegbereiterinnen der, p. 34.55. In fact, in these fields a turn towards alternative methodologies can also

be observed. In 1931 the sixth congress of the General Medical Society for Psychotherapy (Allgemeine ärztliche Gesellschaft für Psychotherapie), held in Dresden, addressed the role of the body in psychotherapy. See Geuter, Ulfried (2000): ‘Historischer Abriss zur Entwicklung der körperorientierten Psychotherapie’, in: Frank Röhricht (ed.): Körperorientierte Psychotherapie psy-chischer Störungen. Ein Leitfaden für Forschung und Praxis, Göttingen: Hogrefe, pp. 53– 74, here pp. 62– 63.

56. Haag, Marianne (2002), www.jacobygindler.ch/gindler.html (last accessed 8 October 2013).

57. See Heller, Body Psychotherapy, pp. 302– 303.58. Ibid., p. 301.59. Ibid.60. Cited in Geuter et al., Elsa Gindler and Her Influence, translation adapted.61. Ibid.62. My use of the concept of ‘curatorship’ picks up on its Latin derivation,

meaning ‘care’. I will come back to this later in the chapter.63. Geuter et al., Elsa Gindler and Her Influence; Ehrenfried, Lily (1991):

‘Körperliche Erziehung zum seelischen Gleichgewicht’, in: Zeitler (1991), pp. 34– 74, here p. 34. The principle of self- exploration was taken up by Emmi Pikler, who became known through her work on Elsa Gindler’s ideas in Budapest with Elfriede Hengstenberg in 1935 (Weaver, ‘The Influence of Elsa Gindler’). Here we see another branch of the Gindler network alongside those associated with body therapies: early childhood education. I am grate-ful to Alice Lagaay for alerting me to this point.

64. Franzen, Gabriele M. (1995): ‘Werden Sie wieder reagierbereit! Elsa Gindler ( 1885– 1961) und ihre Arbeit’, Gestalttherapie, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 3– 19.

65. Ludwig, Wahrnehmen, was wir empfinden, p. 54.66. Ibid.67. Geuter, ‘Die Anfänge der Körperpsychotherapie’, p.175.68. Ibid., pp. 168– 169.69. Heller, Body Psychotherapy, p. 299.70. Ibid.71. Ibid., p. 301.72. For psychology, topology seemed to offer a solution to a fundamental

problem that remains intractable even today: the relationship between


Proof

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041


physiological processes and psychic events. In the nineteenth century, Gustav Fechner’s psychophysics sought the solution in the investiga-tion of relationships between physical stimuli and subjective experiences (external psychophysics). Wolfgang Köhler – who worked closely with Max Wertheimer, Carl Duncker and, importantly, Kurt Lewin on issues in the psychology of perception, thought, learning and motivation – developed a programme of ‘inner psychophysics’, believing that field processes in the sense of electromagnetism played out in the central nervous system. He explained physiological field changes as resulting from psychological processes of perception; modern cognitive neuroscience may be seen as part of this tradition. Kurt Lewin, also loosely associated with the Berlin Gestalt psychologists, turned away from psychophysical models. Again drawing on physical field theory, he developed a ‘purely psychological field theory.’ Lück, Helmut E. (2001): Kurt Lewin. Eine Einführung in sein Werk, Weinheim: Beltz, p. 11.

73. Goldstein, Kurt (1995): The Organism. A Holistic Approach to Biology Derived from Pathological Data in Man, New York: Zone, pp. 76, 79.

74. Ibid., p. 145; also, here translated as ‘ self- realization’, Goldstein, Kurt (1971): Selected Papers. Ausgewählte Schriften, The Hague: Nijhoff, p. 420.

75. This is why Canguilhem was interested in Goldstein. Canguilhem, Georges (1978): On the Normal and the Pathological, trans. by Carolyn R. Fawcett, Dordrecht: Reidel.

76. Heller, Body Psychotherapy, pp. 300f; Geuter, ‘Die Anfänge der Körperpsychotherapie’, pp. 169f.

77. See also Votsmeier, Achim (1995): ‘Gestalttherapie und die “Organismische Theorie” – Der Einfluss Kurt Goldsteins’, Gestalttherapie, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 2– 16.

78. For a striking visual portrayal of these networks, see http://de.inforapid.org/index.php?search=Adh%C3%A9mar%20Gelb (last accessed 8 October 2013).

79. A critical account of this role is offered by Bruno Latour, see Latour, Bruno (2004): ‘Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern’, Critical Inquiry, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 225– 248.

80. Thus, Gindler did not have ‘patients’ but only fellow researchers. In the wake of this and similar approaches, the concept of patient increasingly ceded to the concept of client in body psychotherapy.

81. Dumont, Frank (2010): ‘From Illness to Wellness Models of Human Nature’, in: Frank Dumont (ed.): A History of Personality Psychology. Theory, Science, and Research from Hellenism to the Twenty- First Century, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 35– 74. See also Reckwitz, Andreas (2012): Die Erfindung der Kreativität: Zum Prozess gesellschaftlicher Ästhetisierung, Berlin: Suhrkamp, p. 217.

82. Reckwitz, Die Erfindung der Kreativität, p. 217.83. Ibid., p. 220: ‘In this sense, the programme of positive psychology is a com-

prehensive programme of aestheticizing everyday life, which is to be satu-rated by peak- experiences.’ The peak- experience ‘is felt as a self- validating, self- justifying moment which carries its own intrinsic value with it’; Maslow, Abraham H. (1999): Toward a Psychology of Being, New York: Wiley, p. 90, cited in Reckwitz, Die Erfindung der Kreativität, p. 220.

84. Reckwitz, Die Erfindung der Kreativität, p. 25.


Proof

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041

216 Katja Rothe

85. Schmidt, Robert (2012): Soziologie der Praktiken. Konzeptionelle Studien und empirische Analysen, Berlin: Suhrkamp, p. 70.

86. My use of the term ‘ preenactment’ draws on Yael Bartana’s ‘historical preenactment’ as ‘a methodology that commingles fact and fiction, proph-esy and history.’ See Bartana’s projects at www.pamm.org/exhibitions/ project- gallery- yael- bartana and www.eva.ie/ raising- the- ink- flag- essay (last accessed 8 October 2013). The term highlights the fictional character of every restaging and shows that in Gindler’s networks each new method ‘based on’ Gindler’s work is also an invention, a fiction that transforms Gindler’s work.

87. Haraway, Donna (1988): ‘Situated Knowledges. The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective’, Feminist Studies, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 575– 599.

88. Stengers, Isabelle (2010): Cosmopolitics I, trans. by Robert Bononno, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, p. 34.

89. ‘The critic is not the one who debunks, but the one who assembles. The critic is not the one who lifts the rugs from under the feet of the naı ̈ve believers, but the one who offers the participants arenas in which to gather. The critic is not the one who alternates haphazardly between antifetish-ism and positivism like the drunk iconoclast drawn by Goya, but the one for whom, if something is constructed, then it means it is fragile and thus in great need of care and caution.’ Latour, ‘Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam?’, p. 246.

90. On the political dimension of imagination, see Bergermann, Ulrike; Karin Harrasser (2013): ‘Was wird politisch gewesen sein? Medien, Magie und eine Renaissance der Einbildungskraft’, in: Ulrike Bergermann (ed.): Verspannungen. Vermischte Texte, Berlin: LIT, pp. 363– 374.

Works Cited

Bayertz, Kurt (2012): Der aufrechte Gang. Eine Geschichte des anthropologischen Denkens, Munich: Beck.

Bergermann, Ulrike and Harrasser, Karin (2013): ‘Was Wird Politisch Gewesen Sein? Medien, Magie und eine Renaissance der Einbildungskraft’, in Ulrike Bergermann (ed.): Verspannungen. Vermischte Texte, Berlin: LIT, pp. 363– 374.

Canguilhem, Georges (1978): On the Normal and the Pathological, trans. by Carolyn R. Fawcett, Dordrecht: Reidel (Le Normal et le pathologique, 1943).

Cohn, Ruth (1984): ‘Ein Ansatz zur Psychosomatischen Analyse’, in Helmuth Stolze (ed.): Die Konzentrative Bewegungstherapie. Grundlagen und Erfahrungen, Berlin: Mensch und Leben.

Cornell, William F. (2008): ‘Self in Action: The Bodily Basis of Self- Organization’, in Francis Sommer Anderson (ed.): Bodies in Treatment, New York: Routledge.

Dickmann, Elisabeth and Schöck- Quinteros, Eva (eds) (2000): Barrieren und Karrieren. Die Anfänge des Frauenstudiums in Deutschland. Dokumentationsband der Konferenz ‘100 Jahre Frauen in der Wissenschaft’, Berlin: Trafo- Verlag Weist.

Dumont, Frank (2010): ‘From Illness to Wellness Models of Human Nature’, in: A History of Personality Psychology. Theory, Science, and Research from Hellenism to the Twenty- First Century, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Proof

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041


Ehrenfried, Lily (1991): ‘Körperliche Erziehung zum seelischen Gleichgewicht’, in Peggy Zeitler (ed.): Erinnerungen an Elsa Gindler, Munich: Zeitler, pp. 34– 37.

Fleck, Ludwik (1979): Genes is and Development of a Scientific Fact, trans. by Fred Bradley and Thaddeus J. Trenn, Chicago: University of Chicago Press (Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache, 1935).

Franzen, Gabriele M. (1995): ‘Werden Sie wieder reagierbereit! Elsa Gindler ( 1885– 1961) und ihre Arbeit’, Gestalttherapie, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 3– 19.

Fuchs, Peter (1967): Musik in der Grundschule, Stuttgart: Klett.Geuter, Ulfried (1999): ‘Eine Psychotherapie, die berührt – Streit um den kör-

perlichen Ausdruck von Gefühlen bei der Behandlung von seelisch Kranken’, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 12 October, No. 236, pp. 2– 10.

Geuter, Ulfried (2000): ‘Historischer Abriss zur Entwicklung der körperorienti-erten Psychotherapie’, in Frank Röhricht (ed.): Körperorientierte Psychotherapie psychischer Störungen. Ein Leitfaden für Forschung und Praxis, Göttingen: Hogrefe, pp. 53– 74.

Geuter, Ulfried (2004): ‘Die Anfänge der Körperpsychotherapie in Berlin’, in Thomas Müller (ed.): Psychotherapie und Körperarbeit in Berlin. Geschichte und Praktiken der Etablierung, Husum: Matthiesen, pp. 167– 181.

Geuter, Ulfried, Heller, Michel C., and Weaver, Judyth O. (2009): ‘Elsa Gindler and Her Influence on Wilhelm Reich and Body Psychotherapy’, http://judyth-weaver.com/writings/ elsa- gindler- and- her- influence- on- wilhelm- reich- and- body- psychotherapy (last accessed 8 October 2013).

Giesecke, Birgit (ed.) (2008): Werkstätten des Möglichen 1930– 1936: L. Fleck, E. Husserl., R. Musil, L. Wittgenstein, Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.

Goldstein, Kurt (1971): Selected Papers. Ausgewählte Schriften, The Hague: Nijhoff.Goldstein, Kurt (1995): The Organism: A Holistic Approach to Biology Derived from

Pathological Data in Man, New York: Zone. (Der Aufbau des Organismus, 1934).Günther, Helmut (1975): Tanzunterricht in Deutschland. Eine kultursoziologische

Studie, Berlin: Arbeitskreis für Tanz im Bundesgebiet.Haag, Marianne and Rohloff, Birgit (eds) (2006): Arbeiten bei Elsa

Gindler. Notizen Elsa Gindlers und Berichte einer Teilnehmerin, Berlin: Heinrich- Jacoby- Elsa- Gindler- Stiftung.

Haraway, Donna (1988): ‘Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective’, Feminist Studies, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 575– 599.

Heller, Michael C. (2012): Body Psychotherapy: History, Concepts, and Methods, New York: W. W. Norton.

Hengstenberg, Elfriede (1985): ‘Elsa Gindler’, The Charlotte Selver Foundation Bulletin, Vol. 12, pp. 11– 13.

Hürtgen- Busch, Songrid (1996): Die Wegbereiterinnen der rhythmisch- musikalischen Erziehung in Deutschland, Frankfurt a. M.: dipa.

Hürtgen- Busch, Songrid (2003): ‘“Denn Ihre Methode ist unser Leben.” Der Erhalt der Methode Jaques- Dalcroze in Deutschland durch das Lebenswerk seiner ersten Schülerinnen’, in Stefan Gies (ed.): Dalcroze 2000, Christine Straumer and Daniel Zwiener, Dresden: M. Sandstein, pp. 22– 28.

Huschka, Sabine (2002): Moderner Tanz: Konzepte, Stile, Utopien, Reinbek: Rowohlt.Jacoby, Heinrich (1989): Erziehen – Unterrichten – Erarbeiten. Aus Kursen in Zürich

1954/55, ed. By Sophie Ludwig with the Heinrich- Jacoby/ Elsa- Gindler- Stiftung, Hamburg: Christians.


Proof

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041

218 Katja Rothe

Jacoby, Heinrich (2004): Jenseits von ‘Begabt’ und ‘Unbegabt’. Zweckmäßige Fragestellung und zweckmäßiges Verhalten – Schlüssel für die Entfaltung des Menschen. Einführungskurs 1945, 6th expanded ed., ed. by Sophie Ludwig, Hamburg: Christians.

Johnson, Don Hanlon (ed.) (1995): Bone, Breath, & Gesture. Practices of Embodiment, Berkeley (CA): North Atlantic Books.

Laban, Rudolf (1950): ‘Introduction’, in: The Mastery of Movement on the Stage, London: MacDonald and Evans.

Latour, Bruno (2004): ‘Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern’, Critical Inquiry, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 225– 248.

Linse, Ulrich (2001): ‘Mazdaznan – die Rassereligion vom arischen Friedensreich’, in Stefanie von Schnurbein and Justus H. Ulbricht (ed.): Völkische Religion und Krisen der Moderne. Entwürfe ‘arteigener’ Glaubensssysteme seit der Jahrhundertwende, Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann.

Lück, Helmut E. (2001): Kurt Lewin. Eine Einführung in sein Werk, Weinheim: Beltz.Ludwig, Sophie (2002): Elsa Gindler – von ihrem Leben und Wirken. ‘Wahrnehmen,

was wir empfinden’, Hamburg: Christians.Macho, Thomas (2010): ‘Was tun? Skizzen zur Wissensgeschichte der Beratung’,

in Thomas Brandstetter, Claus Pias, and Sebastian Vehlken (ed.): Think Tanks. Die Beratung der Gesellschaft, Zurich: Diaphanes, pp. 59– 85.

Maslow, Abraham H. (1999 [1962]): Toward a Psychology of Being, New York: Wiley.

Moscovici, Hadassa K. (1989): Vor Freude tanzen, vor Jammer halb in Stücke gehn. Pionierinnen der Körpertherapie, Frankfurt a. M.: Luchterhand.

Polanyi, Michael (1967): The Tacit Dimension, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Reckwitz, Andreas (2002): ‘Toward a Theory of Social Practices. A Development in Culturalist Theorizing’, European Journal of Social Theory, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 243– 263.

Reckwitz, Andreas (2003): ‘Grundelemente einer Theorie sozialer Praktiken. Eine sozialtheoretische Perspektive’, Zeitschrift für Soziologie, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 282– 301.

Reckwitz, Andreas (2012): Die Erfindung der Kreativität: Zum Prozess gesellschaftli-cher Ästhetisierung, Berlin: Suhrkamp.

Rheinberger, Hans- Jörg (2003): ‘Wissensräume und experimentelle Praxis’, in Helmar Schramm, Hans- Christian von Herrmann, Florian Nelle, Wolfgang Schäffner, Henning Schmidgen, and Bernhard Siegert (eds): Bühnen des Wissens. Interferenzen zwischen Wissenschaft und Kunst, Berlin: Dahlem University Press, pp. 366– 382.

Rothe, Katja (2014): ‘Die Rhythmikerinnen an der Berliner Hochschule für Musik: Zur Geschichte praktischen Wissens’, in Dö rte Schmidt and Christine Siegert (eds): Klavierunterricht und andere Formen der Pädagogik [….], die einstmals der bürgerlichen Produktion höherer Töchter dienten. Akademische Kunstausbildung und Frauenstudium, Berlin: UdK- Verlag (forthcoming).

Schmidt, Robert (2012): Soziologie der Praktiken. Konzeptionelle Studien und empirische Analysen, Berlin: Suhrkamp.

Schöler, Julia Helene (2005): ‘Über die Anfänge der Schwedischen Heilgymnastik in Deutschland – ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Krankengymnastik im 19. Jahrhundert’, PhD dissertation, Westfälischen Wilhelms- Universität Münster,


Proof

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041


http://miami. uni- muenster.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/ Derivate- 2865/diss_schoeler.pdf (last accessed 8 October 2013).

Schoop, Trudy (1989): ‘Tanztherapie’, in Hadassa K. Moscovici (ed.): Vor Freude tanzen, vor Jammer halb in Stücke gehn. Pionierinnen der Körpertherapie, Frankfurt am Main: Luchterhand, pp. 157– 185.

Stengers, Isabelle (2010): Cosmopolitics I, trans. Robert Bononno, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Trautmann- Voigt, Sabine (2003): ‘Über die Aneignung des Körpers in der Tanztherapie und die Scham mancher Denker’, Psychoanalyse & Körper, Vol. II, No. 2/3, pp. 75– 102.

Urban, Elke (2001): ‘Rhythmische Gymnastik für Frauen – eine andere Strömung der Frauenbildung’, in Paul Ciupke and Karin Derichs- Kunstmann (eds): Zwischen Emanzipation und ‘besonderer Kulturaufgabe der Frau’. Frauenbildung in der Geschichte der Erwachsenenbildung, Essen: Klartext, pp. 180– 195.

Votsmeier, Achim (1995): ‘Gestalttherapie und die “Organismische Theorie” – Der Einfluss Kurt Goldsteins’, Gestalttherapie, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 2– 16.

Weaver, Judyth O. (2006): ‘The Influence of Elsa Gindler – Ancestor of Sensory Awareness’, http://judythweaver.com/writings/ the- influence- of- elsa- gindler- ancestor- of- sensory- awareness (last accessed 8 October 2013).

Wecker, Regina (2007): ‘Die Schweiz, das europäische Land des Frauenstudiums’, in Ilse Nagelschmidt (ed.): 100 Jahre Frauenstudium an der Alma Mater Lipsiensis, Leipzig: Leipziger Universitäts- Verlag, pp. 235– 252.

Wedemeyer- Kolwe, Bernd (2004): ‘Der neue Mensch’. Körperkultur im Kaiserreich und in der Weimarer Republik, Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann.

Zeitler, Peggy (ed.) (1991): Erinnerungen an Elsa Gindler. Aus den Schriften der Sensory Awareness Foundation, Munich: Zeitler.


Proof


Proof

Query Form

Book Title: Cull EPP

Chapter No: Chapter 09

Queries and / or remarks

Query No. Query / remark Response

No Query


Proof

Documents

The Gymnastics of Thought: Elsa€¦ · gymnastics (for example Hedwig Kallmeyer, Elsa Gindler), rhythmic gymnastics (for example Émile Jaques- Dalcroze, Charlotte Pfeiffer or Nina