One model that paints a clear picture of Somatic learning is Fenwick’s (2003) work.This work is focused on a framework that encompasses and expands Somatic learning, Experiential learning, and Complexity science. It is in this work that I find the most somatic resonance with. Fenwick’s model essentially encompasses the experiences that I have in effective therapy and in effective education that are somatically based. Utilizing many arguments in support of re-embodying the work of experiential learning, Fenwick brings us to complexity science, as a way to create and understand learning contexts. The first idea is that both person and context within a system are inseparable, woven into a single fabric of complex, dynamic, and adaptive interaction. The second idea is that by fiddling with both person and context in such a way as to add to the system, the system becomes triggered to bring about excitation and this “creates a new transcendent unity of action and identities that could not have been achieved independently”, thus stimulating change (p.7). Fenwick goes on to explain that humans are part of systems and will reflect the nature of the system in themselves. We as humans behave as systems do, and using complexity science we can see that whether small-scale or large-scale collective interaction from the autonomic nervous system, as a system within the body to people within families, we operate within a series of relative complex situations with in a series of relating interactions between systems. The result of such dynamic interactions is “unpredictable and inventive” (p. 8). In order for a system to be optimal it needs to able to creatively change to various conditions, both internally and externally, as well as having “diversity among its parts, whose interactions form their own patterns.” (p. 8). In order to facilitate learning, child and adult education must include this systemic model for learning to contain robust effect. Fenwick defines learning: “Learning is cast as continuous invention and exploration, produced through the relations among consciousness, identity, action, and interaction, objects and structural dynamics of complex systems. New possibilities for action are constantly emerging among interactions of complex systems, and cognition occurs in the possibility for unpredictable shared action. Knowledge cannot be contained in any one element or dimension of a system, for knowledge is constantly emerging and spilling into other systems” (p.131). Somatic learning when framed in the context of complexity science reveals many parallels between somatic education and somatic psychology. For instance returning the authoritative power of growth back to the individuals lived experience(Aposhyan, 2004). Also seeing how the mind is essentially a reflection of its interaction with its environment or its system (Siegel, 2001). Fenwick’s thinking and model is an integral idea that could describe an interface between both somatics and education. Looking at Fenwick’s definition of learning, I find a living language that can grasp and explain the complex nature of the lived experience within a series of systems, thus he captures a meta-process that can contain dynamic interactions within multiple complex systems. This could explain how both somatics and education could be used to implement innovative forms of learning, which for instance could utilize embodied pulsation (expansion and contraction) and social engagement as core principles in the design.
Aposhyan, S. (2004). Body-Mind Psychotherapy. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.
Fenwick, T. (2003). Reclaiming and re-embodying experiential learning through complexity science. Studies in the education of adults , 35 (2), 123-141.
Siegel, D. (2001). Toward an interpersonal neurobiology of the developing mind: atachment relationships. “mindsight” and neural integration. Infant Mental Health Journal , 22 (1-2), 67-94.