Revaluing Body Language
Have you ever watched a cat?’ [Peter Brook] asked me unexpectedly [...]
He told me that if you watch any cat, it isn’t just that his body is so relaxed and expressive. It’s something more important than that. A cat actually thinks visibly. If you watch him jump on a shelf, the wish to jump and the action of jumping are one and the same thing. There’s no division. A thought animates his whole body. It’s in exactly the same way that Brook’s exercises try to train the actor.
— John Heilpern from Conference of the Birds: The Story of Peter Brook in Africa
There are no thoughts and experiences that our bodies do not express to others. One cannot keep one’s thoughts and experiences “inside”; one’s body always betrays one’s thoughts and experiences to the “outside” world. Changes to a body’s features, gestures, and postures will always precede, exceed, and succeed each and every passing thought and feeling, and each and every one of us knows this to be a fact—and yet so many of us disavow our knowledge of this fact. Indeed, most of us have been taught from a young age to maintain the false pretense that there can be “private” thoughts and experiences, that there are thoughts and experiences that we can “keep to ourselves”. We pretend as if we can keep our bodies from betraying our thoughts and experiences to others but, in truth, the most that we can do in this regard is muffle our features, gestures, and postures: we can make our features, gestures, and postures mumble, whisper, and articulate things poorly. Nevertheless, no matter how good we are at muffling our bodies, our bodies never cease to express our thoughts and experiences to some degree in some way, shape, or form.
Unless you are fortunate enough to make a living as a performing artist, you will very likely be shunned by civilized society if you cannot muffle your body and your body refuses to mumble and whisper “unmentionable” thoughts and experiences. Indeed, our early schooling in a civilized society demands that we learn two lessons above all. First, we must learn to muffle our bodies, to make our bodies mumble and whisper thoughts and experiences that we are told to “keep to ourselves”: this allows others to pretend that thoughts and experiences that they’d rather not acknowledge have gone unexpressed. Second, we must learn to become unobservant: this allows us to overlook the “unmentionable” thoughts and experiences that other bodies mumble and whisper in our presence.
I aim to counter my civilization and my schooling. I aim to dispel the illusion that there can be private thoughts and experiences. I aim to make my body increasingly expressive so as to skillfully articulate my thoughts and experiences in and through my body language and, what’s more, I aim to become increasingly more observant so that I may better discern the “unmentionable” thoughts and experiences that other bodies mumble and whisper in my presence.
The Tendencies of Body Language
Our thoughts and experiences are always betrayed by our body language, yes, but it would be a mistake to assume that our body language represents our thoughts and experiences synecdochally, as if making a statement of fact. Our bodies can express our thoughts and experiences synecdochally, yes, but our bodies can also express our thoughts and experiences in other ways: metaphorically, metonymically, and ironically.
A metonymic expression is a reductive, indexical expression. The metonym reduces a complex whole to its simpler aspects or parts. For example, take the verbal phrase “What’s the headcount?”—this phrase reduces a group of persons-to-be-counted to their heads.
A metaphorical expression is a perspectival, iconic expression. The metaphor sees something in terms of something else. It brings out the thisness of that, or the thatness of this. If we employ the word “character” as a general term for whatever can be thought of as distinct, we could say that metaphor considers one character from the point of view of another character. Ay, and to consider character A from the point of view of character B is, of course, to take character B’s perspective on character A. For example, take the verbal phrase “the light of reason"—in this phrase we find light characterizing reason and reason characterizing light; we regard light from the perspective of reason, and we regard reason from the perspective of light.
A synecdochal expression is a representative, symbolic expression. The synecdoche establishes a relationship of convertibility between two terms. Metaphor deals with two different characters: it reveals one character from the perspective of another and vice versa. Synecdoche, by contrast, deals with only one character: it reveals how one and the same character can appear in different guises. For example, take the Christian discourse regarding the Holy Trinity in which one character, God, comes to be known in three different guises—the guise of the Father, the guise of the Son, and the guise of the Holy Ghost.
An ironic expression is a gestural, dramatic expression. One character makes for a synecdoche; two characters makes for a metaphor; more than two (or at least three) characters makes for an irony. Ironic expressions involve more than two different characters and gives their differing perspectives with one another. Through irony one gains a meta-perspective that relates at least three different characters and their differing perspectives on one another. From the standpoint of this meta-perspective, this "perspective on perspectives”, none of the participating “partial perspectives” can be treated as all encompassing: there is no “master perspective” but only ways of relating “partial perspectives”. The “perspective on perspectives” that we gain from irony is a transversal perspective that enables us to plays different perspectives with and against one another and to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses with respect to one another. For example, The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoyevsky’s masterpiece, is a work of profound irony that evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the different perspectives of its title characters by playing them with and against one another.
Body language (i.e., the language of features, gestures, and postures) tends towards ironical and metaphorical expressions and away from synecdochal and metonymic expressions. By contrast, verbal language (i.e., the language of words, phrases, and statements) tends towards synecdochal and metonymic expressions and away from metaphorical and ironical expressions. This is to say, in other words, that body language tends to be (meta-)perspectival, and that verbal language tends to be reductive and representational. Verbal language must reduce and represent our thoughts and experiences before it can give us a (meta-)perspective on them, but body language gives us a (meta-)perspective on our thoughts and experiences without ever reducing and representing them.
To make one’s body more expressive is, first and foremost, to heighten one’s body’s ironic and metaphoric expressivity, it’s capacity to give one a (meta-)perspective on one’s thoughts and experiences without ever reducing and representing one’s thoughts and experiences. To become more observant of others bodies is to recognize that their body language communicates a (meta-)perspective on their thoughts and experiences without ever reducing and representing their thoughts and experiences.
Civilized society teaches us to communicate with others and to interpret communication from others in reductive and representative ways. Countering civilization and making one’s body expressive means learning to eschew reductions and representations whenever possible, and learning to communicate with others and to interpret communication from others in (meta-)perspectival ways without recourse to reductions and representations.
The Adjustment of the Body
To make a body expressive is to en-able a body; to make a body repressive is to dis-able a body. To be en-abled is not to support oneself but, rather, to be supported by one’s milieu. Likewise, to be dis-abled is not to find fault in oneself but, rather, it is to find fault with one’s milieu. We do individuals a disservice when we say that individuals “have dis-abilities”: individuals are never dis-abled in and of themselves, rather, individuals are dis-abled by their milieu. This is to say, in other words, that making one’s body more expressive means transforming one’s milieu, making one’s milieu more en-abling.
A body is dis-abled when it must effectively fight external forces in order to find its balance; or, in other words, a body is dis-abled when a body has to use its internal forces to struggle against external forces in order to balance itself. A body is en-abled when it affects external forces in order to adjust its balance; or, in other words, a body is en-abled when, without ever losing its balance, a body uses its internal forces to adjust its balance and otherwise relies on external forces to support itself.
A body maintains three different kinds of balance: positional balance, situational balance, and constitutional balance. These three kinds of balance are entangled with one another: lose one balance for long enough and you will wind up losing all three.
Positional or “intra-corporeal” balance. One is positionally dis-abled when the different parts of one’s body are organized in such a way that they obstruct each other’s movements and cause one to lose one’s balance. One is positionally en-abled when the different parts of one’s body are organized in such a way that they facilitate each other’s movements and en-able one to adjust one’s balance. For instance, you are positionally dis-abled when you seat yourself in such an awkward position that you can’t stand up again without losing your balance; you are positionally en-abled when you seat yourself in a comfortable position that en-ables you to easily shift from sitting to standing.
Situational or “inter-corporeal” balance. One is situationally dis-abled when other bodies are organized relative to one’s own body in such a way that they obstruct the movements of one’s own body and cause one to lose one’s balance. One is situationally en-abled when other bodies are organized relative to one’s own body in such a way that they facilitate the movements of one’s own body and en-able one to adjust one’s balance. For instance, you are situationally dis-abled when you find yourself in a space so crowded that you run into someone or something whenever you move; you are situationally en-abled when you find yourself in a roomy space that you can move through with ease.
Constitutional or “trans-corporeal” balance. One is constitutionally dis-abled when the flow of bodies into and through one’s own body facilitates the movements of one’s own body and cause one to lose one’s balance. One is constitutionally en-abled when the flow of bodies into and through one’s own body facilitates the movements of one’s own body and en-able one to adjust one’s balance. For instance, you are constitutionally dis-abled when you consume food that gives you stomach ache and makes you double over; you are constitutionally en-abled when you consume food that energizes and invigorates your body.
We may speak of a body having positional, situational, and constitutional expressiveness to the extent that a body is en-abled in the ways described above, and we may speak of a body lacking positional, situational, and constitutional expressiveness to the degree that a body is dis-abled in the ways described above.
The surest way to lose your balance is to endeavor to keep a given state of balance, and the surest way to achieve balance is to keep adjusting one’s balance, continuously shifting from one state of balance to another. In other words, to make one’s body expressive, one should not endeavor to hold a single self-same state of balance and to achieve maximal stasis but, rather, one should endeavor to keep shifting amongst different states of balance and to achieve maximal dynamism. Achieving balance does not mean maintaining the same position, maintaining the same situation, and maintaining the same constitution. To the contrary, achieving balance means being able to adjust one’s position, being able to adjust one’s situation, and being able to adjust one’s constitution.
Most bodies tend to shift amongst a minimally dispersed and non-uniform distribution of balanced states, which is to say, most bodies tend to adjust their balance in a few predictable ways. When I speak of “making a body expressive”, however, I am speaking of adjusting one’s balance in many unpredictable ways without losing one’s balance: to make a body expressive is to maximize the entropy and dispersal that characterizes the distribution of balanced states that a body shifts amongst, aiming to achieve maximum entropy and dispersion. The more expressive body is the body that is able to adjust its position, situation, and constitution in more unpredictable ways.
One cannot practice adjusting one’s balance in unpredictable ways without risking one’s balance, without taking chances that might result in a loss of balance. To practice adjusting one’s balance in unpredictable ways, one must affirm risking one’s balance, affirm chancing a loss of balance. That being said, however, to affirm risking one’s balance is not to affirm losing one’s balance: although I risk losing my balance I practice adjusting my balance, the last thing I want is to lose my balance and I would be overjoyed if my fortunes were such that I never once lost my balance. To make my body expressive I will have to risk putting my body in uncomfortable positions and situations and I must risk discomforting my constitution: I will never experience discomfort if I am fortunate, but I will not always be fortunate.
The Adjustment of Breathing
The balance of a body’s breathing is the most exemplary species constitutional balance: the more balanced a body’s breathing, the more expressive the body; the less balanced a body’s breathing, the less expressive the body. Whenever we muffle our bodies so that they become less expressive, whenever we make our bodies mumble and whisper, we inevitably throw our breathing off balance. Whenever we succeed in making our bodies more expressive, we inevitably balance our breathing.
There is a Zen saying that is instructive for those endeavoring to balance their breathing: “Not Two, Not One”. I venture that we may interpreted as follows:
“Two” or Dualistic Breathing means attending to breathing as two discrete constitutional operations, as inspiration, on the one hand, and as expiration, on the other.
“One (and Not Two)” or Holistic Breathing means attending to breathing as one continuous constitutional operation, respiration, that encompasses inspiration and expiration to one another.
“Not Two, Not One” or Differential Breathing means attending to breathing as a spectrum of differing constitutional operations, a spectrum of respiratory patterns.
To balance one’s breathing is not to balance inspiration, on the one hand, and expiration, on the other. Nor is it to regard respiration as a single whole, bringing inspiration and expiration together into one. To balance one’s breathing is to be able to traverse a spectrum of differing respirations, shifting from one respiratory pattern to another, becoming aware of how each and every pattern strikes a different balance between inspirations and expirations.
What is true for respiratory balance, as a particular species of constitutional balance, is equally true for the genera of constitutional balance and, more broadly, it is also true for the entire family of balances, the positional and the situational in addition to constitutional. Balance is neither dualistic nor holistic; balance is differential, “Not Two, Not One.” One can neither find balance between two extremes, nor can one find balance in achieving oneness; one can only find balance in and through continuous variation.
The Adjustment of the Mind
Body language is, first and foremost, ironical. Ironic expressions precede, exceed, and succeed metaphorical expressions because differential relations precede, exceed, and succeed their relata: an irony is a differential relations and metaphors are the relata of an irony.
Verbal language is, first and foremost, metonymic but the relationship between the metonymic and synecdochic is the obverse of the relationship between metaphor and irony. The relata of identity relations precede, exceed, and succeed identity relations: a synechdoche is an identity relation and metonyms are the relata of a synechdoche.
The relationship between body language and verbal language can be made clear by considering the following progression.
Ironies (or embodied meta-perspectives) are differential relations that precede, exceed, and succeed their relata.
Metaphors (or embodied perspectives) are the relata of ironies.
Primary metonyms (or proto-verbal reductions) index the different metaphors that are the relata of ironies.
Primary synecdoches (or concrete verbal representations) relate primary metonyms to one another, identifying those primary metonyms that index the same metaphor.
Secondary metonyms (or concrete verbal reductions) index the different primary metonyms that are the relata of a primary synecdoche.
Secondary synecdoches (or abstract verbal representations) relate secondary metonyms to one another, identifying those secondary metonyms that index the same primary metonym.
Tertiary metonyms (or abstract verbal reductions) index the different secondary metonyms that are the relata of a secondary synecdoche.
Ironic body language interprets the world; metaphorical body language and proto-verbal body language interpret ironic body language; concrete verbal language interprets metaphorical body language and proto-verbal body language; and abstract verbal language interprets concrete verbal language. A maximally expressive body is able to express itself clearly with ironic body language alone. A less expressive body has to use metaphorical body language and proto-verbal language to clarify its ironic body language. An even less expressive body has to use concrete verbal language to clarify things further. The least expressive body has to employ abstract verbal language to clarify things even further.
In order to make my body maximally expressive, I must progressively (i) eschew abstract verbal language in favor of concrete verbal language, (ii) eschew concrete verbal language in favor of metaphorical body language and proto-verbal body language, and (iii) eschew proto-verbal body language and metaphorical body language in favor of ironic body language.