By stressing the dynamic connections established
between mind and body in Iyengar yoga practice, I have presented some of the ways
in which the multiple body (somatically felt, sentient and feeling) is constituted
and experienced. Now, I will focus on the ways
in which the body (and its experience) is done
through practice, drawing particular attention to the body´s capacity to be
open to being affected by the other. In order to do this I will foreground the
practice -in the way it is done within the perspective of Actor Network Theory
[ANT] (cf. Akrich and Pasveer 2004, Mol and Law 2004)- to show how it
works to create the particular experience of the embodied self which was
presented. As it was explained in the introduction, this approach is of great
value, since it complements the phenomenological perspective of the lived body
by displaying all the body´s potential for relationality. While the first
approach allowed to exhibit the ways in which Iyengar yoga defies the mind-body
split, this part will show how the practice challenges the assumption of a
singular, fixed and bounded body and its correlative conception of a
self-contained subject.
Latour´s (2004) article ‘How to Talk About the Body?’
is a good illustration of conceptualizing the body as always multiple in the
sense that it is open to different kinds of assemblage with techniques, artefacts and
practices, by which it is constituted. By using the example of the odour kit he
shows how the body´s capacity for developing a good nose is not isolated from
the material, social and cultural context, but rather it is the result from the
articulations by which the body learnt to be affected –in this case by the
odour kit.
Starting from Latour´s approach and this specific
example, it is possible to expand our understanding of the body´s
transformation as a result of its connection with the mind, complementing it
with the idea of a body which can learn to be open not only to the subject´s reflexivity
and intentionality, but also to the material conditions that surround it. From
here, I will explore how the use of props in the practice of Iyengar yoga
offers a particular form of articulation which is central for the enactment of
the lived body I have described.
Something that is learned through Iyengar
practice is that props cannot be understood as pre-existing and pre-defined
objects, which are separate and ready to be used by the practitioner.
Actually, props are defined not so much by their material characteristics
(form, texture, weight, etc.), but rather by the way in which they are used.
Therefore, what might be seen as a singular and fixed chair can be transformed,
when used as prop, into a multiple artefact with many possible and different uses.
Despite their multiple functions, props are defined ultimately by their
articulation with the practitioner´s body, an articulation which implies a
dynamic entanglement rather than a mere interaction between two separate
entities, i.e. object and subject. This articulation simultaneously demands and
promotes in the practitioner the embodied learning to be affected, i.e. the
possibility to be open to that process of interpenetration with the material
other. Here, to be open means something very concrete as it is through the skin
that prop and body are entangled. In the body/prop conjoining, the limit of the
skin is transformed into a permeable interface allowing the interchange between
the inside and the outside.
We might think about this by drawing on Howes’
(2005 in Blackman 2008) notion of ‘skin knowledge’, which refers to the skin as
more than physical surface, considering it as “a form of intelligent bodily
knowing” (2008: 86) which is characterised as not simply cognitive but also
tactile. Using this notion, it is possible to understand the importance of the
skin in Iyengar yoga practice, for it is the site by which the embodied self is
connected with the other
(human and non-human), but also as it is the place where the bodily awareness can
be developed.
 |
| Supta Virasana |
In order to
have a more embodied approach to the assemblages between body and prop, and
particularly to the role played by the skin in them, let us resort to some
examples. In the photograph we can see the performing of Supta Virasana (Reclining Hero pose) with four props (one blanket,
one belt and two blocks). From an external point of view it might be judged as
an easy posture, since it appears as a mere action of lying. However, there can
also be a lot of action and movement happening in the sentient and felt body
and this is directly dependent on the way the body is open to be affected by
the props.
In this case, each prop constitutes a particular
conjoining with a specific part of the body, which means that they are being
affected in different ways. The articulation blanket/gluteus, for example, is touching the gluteus´
skin in a way that gives to them a particular direction. But none of these
articulations are intended to affect only the body´s surface, but rather to be
incorporated through the skin as a more internal bodily awareness. In this
case, the contact created between the blanket and the gluteus allows the
development of a sensibility which penetrates from the skin to the gluteus and
from there to the lower spine (coccyx). With the conjoining block/upper back is
a little different, since what is incorporated is not a direction or movement
through the skin, but rather the action of pushing. Here, to be open so as to
be affected means not to resist the block, but rather to be able to let go the
corporeal materiality in a way that the upper back is incorporated in the
body´s flesh while the body is penetrating the block. The sensibility is
transmitted from the back to the front, allowing the opening of the chest from
the internal movement. Finally, in the articulation block/head, the block is
providing a support for the head. Nevertheless, by letting the head to be heavy
on the block´s surface, an internal movement can be felt: the front starts
lying on the back with perceptible changes in facial muscles and skin, where
tension starts to be released.
This example illustrates how the sentient and
felt body experienced in Iyengar practice is not the result from an
entanglement between mind and body situated just within the individual. It is
rather produced by specific forms of assemblage between the body and its context
–here materialised by the props. The direct implication of this is that the
body´s boundaries are disclosed as porous and therefore the inner/outer and
self/other distinction is destabilised. Rather than a fixed and bounded body
and self, through this analysis of Iyengar yoga is revealed an embodied self,
opened through the body´s capacity to be affected, and which is always becoming
different by being done and enacted through different forms of mediation.
Bibliography
Akrich, M. and
Pasveer, B. (2004). Embodiment and Disembodiment in Childbirth Narratives. Body & Society 10(2-3):63-84.
Blackman, L. (2008) The Body: Key Concepts. Oxford: Berg.
Latour, B. (2004) ‘How to Talk About the Body? The
Normative Dimension of Science Studies’. Body
& Society 10(2-3): 205-229.
Mol, A. and Law, J. (2004) ‘Embodied action, Enacted Bodies: The example
of Hypoglycaemia’. Body & Society
10(2-3): 43-62.