Is Authentic a Meaningful Name for the Practice of Authentic Movement?

摘要

Participation in and development of Authentic Movement practice has captured my interest and study for the past 20 years. However, for some time I have questioned the, to my mind, problematic label authentic. Whilst the term has particular historical origins and rationale, it can appear misleading in contemporary practice. A claim to authenticity may imply a hierarchy between those who can move authentically and those who cannot. Thereby it might set up unrealistic expectations in those newly attracted to the practice. The label authentic can disguise the essentially participatory core of the practice. In this article I share my reflections on the name Authentic (Movement) and my reasons for replacing it with the new term MoverWitness exchange. This paper illuminates one aspect of my research included in my dissertation, Shared habitats: The MoverWitness paradigm (E. Goldhahn, University of Plymouth and Dartington College of Arts, Devon, UK, 2007).