I have been dancing the movement practice called “Five Rhythms” on and off for a couple of years now, and am presently in the middle of a series of workshops which are subbranded “Heartbeat”. As far as I can gather from the founder’s website, which is not however very clear on this, this is intended to be the second of five “levels” in the Five Rhythms practice (the subsequent ones are “Cycles”, “Mirrors” and “the Silver Desert” respectively – the site is in Java so there are no hyperlinks to individual pages but look under “The Dancing Path” and “Becoming a Teacher”). (Roth also calls these the “first five levels”; afterwards there is still “Embodiment” and “Expression”). Our teacher says that Heartbeat is “the name for the emotional work in Five Rhythms dance”.
Whilst there is a lot of wisdom in some of what Roth says and has transmitted to other teachers, it is time for a working hypothesis of my own in relation to what this practice is and is not, the claims it makes and the place it might occupy in ones personal development practice portfolio.
I dance Five Rhythms and will probably go on doing so basically because I find it a very good integrative practice, as well as an enjoyable way to practice embodiment and embodied meditation. The wisdom of the body is there to be discovered in the practice. Five Rhythms is very popular in the tantra community for this reason.
However, whilst it does not appear to eschew portraying itself as such, which I find very regrettable, Five Rhythms is not a transformative or complete practice, and certainly not a rapid and/or deep one. In my opinion Roth, like so many others, has succumbed to commercial temptation and erected her system into a clumsy systematic “theology” of branded personal growth which is as unconvincing as it is inoperative and unnecessary. Just as access to the Godhead is mediated through layers of priesthood in the folk practice of the church (not in its mystical tradition), so layers of practice are interpolated between the practitioner and his or her full embodied expression in Roth’s schema, and the more there are, the more profitable it is. This is not a new strategy. It has been the strategy of religion through the ages.
I am not of course saying that there is no role for trajectories in such practices at all. But all they are is practices. They are not paths. Roth loses sight of this by pushing her initially perfectly valid observations and frameworks into overarching metaphors which are presented as a kind of key to unlock the secrets of the heart and of being human, but which are no such thing.
As any theory which is helpful enough in terms of what it is designed to explain, its reckless extension by analogy produces only increasing distorsion. Roth’s pentateuchal fetishism in these successive layers of practice reaches levels which evoke the spirit of Pythagorean mysticism. What is to be discovered is no longer innate but increasingly arcane. This strikes me as a dance of the mind, fully disconnected from reality, ungrounded and hopeless.
Let me illustrate. A (supposedly positive) review of Roth’s autobiographical handbook Sweat your Prayers on amazon.de states that as a result of movement work with Fritz Perls (the founder of Gestalt therapy), Roth “came to isolate five rhythms related to five archetypes or states of being“. Now, the description of these as “rhythms” is itself strange, as they of course are not; they are something more like “musical moods”. That there are exactly five such “moods” (flowing, staccato, chaos, lyrical and stillness) is hardly a taxonomy which exists naturally and objectively. Rather there is an infinitive variety of musical moods, which fade indistinctly into each other. Thus Roth has at the outset chosen what can only be reasonably considered a metaphor, and goes on to overapply this metaphor to everything that comes within her sight.
The same source goes on to say that “Roth claims that even terminally inhibited people can learn to enter these rhythms and sense how it feels to inhabit ‘mother, mistress, madonna, father, son and holy spirit.’ The three feminine archetypes follow a flowing rhythm, according to Roth, while the energy of the masculine archetypes corresponds to a staccato rhythm. Roth discovered that when the masculine and feminine fuse, a rhythm of fertile chaos results, as in acts of artistic creation or love. The resolution of chaos is the lightness and liberation of a lyrical rhythm, while stillness is the most profound rhythm of all.”
This is once again a fully extraordinary statement. Firstly, the identification of the Christian trinity as a trinitarian aspect of the masculine akin to the three feminine aspects embodied in the ancient European triple Goddess representation is to my knowledge unprecedented and very odd. Although there is a superficial similarity (the number three), the feminine trinity represents the three phases of the moon and of adult womanhood; the “masculine trinity” (the Christian one at least) represents no such thing. Furthermore, the Christian doctrine of the trinity as such is a late innovation which in no way can be or ever was designed to supplant the cult of the triple goddess. The subjugation of female by male deities had been complete millennia earlier. Thus the two have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.
The inherent counter-intuitive and speculative nature of the “discovery” of the fusion of masculine and feminine into “chaos” and the rest of the ontogenesis of the Rothian pentateuch (which looks like a discovery of three additional genders) I leave as an exercise to the reader…
In the workshops we have been invited to experience more exotic combinations of the “rhythms”. The “five” emotions (which is Roth’s own and certainly not a canonical list) of fear, anger, sadness, joy and compassion are paired with each of the “rhythms” in a way which is not really obvious, nor consistent with the characterization in Roth’s own book Maps to Ecstasy of some of these rhythms as “masculine” and others “feminine”, and the proposition of a fivefold classification of character (with no theoretical or experimental basis at all) corresponding to each of the five “rhythms”. In my view this is absolutely no reasonable basis for a scientific psychotherapy. It is basically, as another reviewer on Amazon characterized it, “cumbersome and tiresome psychobabble”.
We are then invited to experience one rhythm within another, the rhythm with and without the corresponding emotion, lightness within each of them … an utterly confusing attempt at embodied “visualizations” which sollicited the head far too much for a technique supposed to be centered in the body.
The workshops have primarily involved actual dance, but there have also been some exercises, mostly with no particular power to them compared to what I have found in pretty well every tantra workshop I have attended. I have found that in Five Rhythms it is very easy to avoid contact with the other dancers and this is what most people in fact do – contact is only fleeting and never to the point of discomfort which might prompt psychosomatic response. I see no real reason why the practice, relying as I said on “embodied visualizations”, should reorganize the psychic armoring. In my view this is a secondary phenomenon in the workshops which mainly draws on experiences outside of them. When a psychosomatic response does occur, it is not built upon to the benefit of the group – the workshop leader does nothing with it, certainly at group level.
This is why I characterize the practice as “integrative”. The best experiences I have had dancing Five Rhythms have been when I entered the room with a quantity of open psychic material, as a result of life events or of other workshops. I have felt it has an ability to “sew me back together”. But not to rip me apart. Of course to some degree it might if the very fact of engaging in such a practice is challenging for the practitioner. But this strikes me as a relatively low bar to clear. Most people will be well able to engage in the practice without troubling their resistances.
In short, I still like the practice notwithstanding its quasi-metaphysical psychobabble and I have certainly also drawn benefit from it, some of which I will hopefully describe in future posts. However, I think it would be far purer and more useful in a form freed from the oppression of the omnipresent pentateuchal metaphysic, and less comfortably solipsistic. There is a place, undeniably, for gentle approaches which are accessible to a wider audience, and for restorative methods, not only the deconstruction of defenses; but these approaches should be honest about what they can and cannot achieve.
Hi, Interesting.. I wrote my own little essay on what the 5Rhythms is and isnt and was just trawling to see what else there is out there. I agree with many of your points, about the commercial structure, that it is not really therapy in a strong sense and that Gabrielle Roth’s writing is very noisy. However, I do think there is a discovery in there, which is better reflected on average in what is taught than what Gabrielle Roth wrote. Comments would be most welcome: http://paintmychromosomes.blogspot.com/2013/11/what-is-5rhythms-manifesto.html
Comment of a friend who I shared this with you might appreciate: “Thank you! Finally somebody said something about 5R with a right prospective. I agree completely: the dance itself is a good practice (nothing more, nothing less) everything else it’s well designed psychobabble. Not omitting my respect for ability to build a successful businesses by Roth, unfortunately with manipulative tendencies like any other business based on believe system. ”
Based on all of this Ive edited my piece a little to make a few of the things that the 5rhythms should not claim to be a bit more explicit (e.g. a path or therapy). purity here would indeed be excellent, However my positive argument is that I think that improbable as it might seem, some of the pentateuchal metaphysics can be justified (not for example the 5 layers of the practice).
Glad you found the piece helpful. I got some very defensive reactions from some 5R teachers, which I think also speaks for itself. I am open minded as to whether it is a good way to dj an inner journey through dance although I struggle to believe there’s anything universal about it. Nevertheless, some teachers certainly use it effectively, generally in combination with some other techniques which fill in lacunae in the 5R practice itself, notably the underdeveloped interpersonal dimension, where it most differs from biodanza. Wishing you and your friend all the best!
Thank you, Ive been a bit surprised at the absence of critical writing about the rhythms. Your piece is all I found. If there is something universal about them, which at this point is at best a hypothesis, there are few in the community who are interested in nailing down what it might be, let alone demonstrating it. This is all solipsistic and defensive. Or in 5rhythms terms, they are stuck in flowing!
Sorry just a small addendum to my last post. Defense is staccato thing to do. The flowing thing to do is to be protective. Actually one thing I become aware of going through the heartbeat map is that I defend myself in situations where 98/100 people would protect themselves. Not that aware, it seems!
Adding this to conversation Be curious to see how others relate to this additional perspective and practice !?
Anne
http://www.embodiedtherapy.org.uk/DOA_in_theory%20_practice.pdf
Dance of Awareness (DoA) is an approach to working with movement, dance and awareness, developed by Tim Brown, a body psychotherapist and Clare Osbond, a dance movement therapist.
The DoA cycle – sensing, grounding, expressing, releasing, connecting and completing – follows an energetic wave, charging and discharging over the course of a session. The DoA is similar in structure to the Five Rhythms wave developed by Roth (1999), but has been adapted to take account of psychodynamic theory and developmental psychology.
Also my thesis – enquiry into the luved experience of therapeutic/ creative dance
http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10292/1015/HurstA.pdf?sequence=3
I have not heard of this Anne, but it sounds interesting.