This research is in reference to Carrie Noland’s articulation of agency and embodiment, specifically; her understanding of agency as emerging through embodied habit, rather than existing solely as conscious intention. Drawing on the works of Andre Leroi-Gourhan, and Jacques Derrida, Noland frames movement as historically sedimented, shaped through repetition, training, and lived experience over time, as well as making reference to any individual’s ancestral history, including the evolution of fine motor-skills before full human cerebral development.
Leroi-Gourhan’s conception of gesture emphasises the evolutionary and habitual nature of movement, suggesting that traces of movement are stored as ‘proposed connections between nerves in the muscles and the cerebral cortex’ which remain accessible for later use, sometimes in unpredictable ways (Noland, 2009). Derrida’s notion of trace further supports the idea that past actions leave inscriptions within the body, influencing present movement choices and instincts. When combined, these perspectives position the body as an archive of movement history, rather than a neutral or purely expressive instrument.
Within this theoretical framework, agency is understood as the capacity to negotiate, adapt, and respond within any given conditions. This understanding is relevant to the use of movement restraint within this research, as by introducing physical limitation, the workshops foregrounded habitual movement patterns, revealing how participants exercised agency through adaptation, choice, and attentional shifts, instead of through an expansion of movement range.
Noland’s framework provides a lens for analysing differences and similarities between participants, particularly in relation to varied movement histories. Technical dance training is not positioned as the sole determinant of embodied awareness, this approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of how diverse bodily experiences shape the perception, awareness, habit, and agency in movement practices.
Andrea Olsen’s somatic approach, particularly as articulated in Moving Between Worlds, forms a second key theoretical framework for this research. Olsen focuses on the role of body history, sensory awareness, and reflective practice in understanding movement as an embodied, lived experience. Her concept of ‘body stories’ frames movement as a site where personal history, memory, internal sensations, and imagination may intersect.
Olsen’s work inscribes practices such as body scanning, and reflective writing as tools for accessing one’s embodied knowledge, as well as developing an appreciation for the movement history which shapes the individual. These practices align closely with the methodological design of the workshops, in which participants were repeatedly invited to attend to sensation, tension, imagery, and thought, as well as articulating these experiences through written and visual documentation. Two of her practical tasks incorporated in her writings, were carried out during the workshops; these being the ‘inner-observer’ body scan as initiation, as well as the ‘body-history’ writing task included in the chapter ‘Underlying Patterns: Biography’ from Moving Between Worlds.
Within this framework, awareness is heightened through attentive internal listening, rather than external correction, or aesthetic judgement. This perspective informed the non-prescriptive nature of the workshops’ prompts, including the absence of codified technique language. By prioritising the internal sensations and somatic reflection, the practice allowed for the participants to engage with their movement histories and bodily patterns, however they preferred to.
Through Olsen’s support of reflective documentation, this was integrated as a central component of the practice-as-research findings. The use of body maps and written thought reflection, functioned as means for deepening comprehension and revealing patterns, which may otherwise have remained unnoticed within this movement practice.
Moreover, through the combination of both theoretical references, these frameworks provide complementary lenses for the analysis of the practice-as-research process’s outcomes. Noland’s articulation of agency and embodied habit offers a means of understanding how restraint reveals adaptive choices, while Olsen’s somatic approach supports the articulation of body-mind awareness through reflective practice. These frameworks also inform the analysis of the workshops, which are presented in the following section, enabling a reading of movement restraint as activation for body-mind awareness, and agency within diverse body histories.
