Laban investigated matching and clashing relationships between effort qualities and shape qualities. Lamb dug deeper, examining relationships between effort and effort flow and shape and shape flow. He found that men and women tend to manifest different flow patterns.
According to Lamb, men tend to combine bound flow with fighting efforts and free flow with indulging efforts (matching patterns). Women do the opposite – combining free flow with fighting efforts and bound flow with indulging efforts (clashing patterns). Lamb provided a practical example based on watching male and female soccer teams. He noted that women can kick the ball just as far as men. But women will tend to use free flow with directing, increasing pressure, and accelerating (fighting effort qualities) while men will use bound flow when kicking the ball.
In terms of shape, women will tend to use growing shape flow with indulging shapes and shrinking shape flow with fighting shapes (matching patterns). Men do the opposite (clashing patterns). For example, when a woman settles back in a chair with a retreating (fighting) shape quality, she will tend to use shrinking shape flow. When a man leans backwards, he tends to grow.
Consequently, Lamb concluded that effort qualities are likely to be clearer in men’s movement and shape qualities more obvious in women’s movement. From my own work as a Movement Pattern Analyst, I have found this often to be the case. As a female observer, I have had to overcome certain body prejudices when interviewing and observing men, because their shaping processes never look “right” to me!
Admittedly, the male and female tendencies that Lamb detected are subtle and complex patterns of movement behavior. These tendencies are not immediately obvious, even for trained movement analysts. I believe Lamb’s work presents a challenge for our community to develop our practice.
Find out more in the next blog.