Abstract
This article focuses on the collective behavior of Paris subway passengers in a public space as a social and anonymous phenomenon through the study of their movements and postures. For this purpose, I use the ‘Subcam’ data-acquisition device and a human movement scoring system, ‘Kinetography Laban’. The latter, created by Rudolf Laban and developed in choreography, is little known in the scientific world, but it could make a significant contribution in sociology. Kinetography Laban allows us to objectify and analyze human movement, which is often considered to be an elusive object. The case study is conducted on the Paris subway, at stops on the number 14 line during rush hour. The scoring of passengers’ movements and bodily postures highlights the existence of recurring patterns in the way people move. This work also demonstrates the existence of bodily techniques, which are often referred to by sociologists such as Mauss, Bourdieu and Boltanski without empirical evidence. This research shows not only that Kinetography Laban is applicable to social scientific research but also that it is possible to do a sociological study through movement and bodily postures using this method. The article therefore opens up a new field of research in sociology: sociology of movement.
The article focuses on the collective behavior in a public space as a social and anonymous phenomenon through the study of movements and postures of Paris subway passengers. In sociological studies of collective behavior, the role of human movement and body are rarely considered. In fact human movement is rarely discussed in sociology. My aim is to consider body dynamics (ways of moving) and bodily postures as a component of the collective phenomenon. I assume that the varied movements of individuals may have some significance that can help us to understand social phenomenon.
The case study was conducted on the Paris subway, line 14 at the train stops during rush hours. Passengers’ movements and postures in this context were observed and analyzed. I used two methods in particular: the Subcam device and Kinetography Laban. The first is a tool for filming human behaviors in social and real contexts. The latter is a coding system for recording human motion, created by Rudolf Laban and developed in choreography in the early 19th century. Kinetography Laban allows us to objectify and to analyze human movements that are difficult to grasp and were previously considered to be an elusive object. It is still little known in the scientific area, but its contribution could be significant in sociology.
The goal is to understand a social phenomenon from the standpoint of human movement and postures. Some of the questions that arise in this context are: Is it possible to study a movement? Is it possible to study a social phenomenon using individuals’ movements and bodily postures? Can movement and postures become a subject of sociological study? Is it possible to conduct sociological research through movement? My hypothesis is that body movements and postures can be objectively studied using a scoring method like Kinetography Laban – also called Labanotation – and I suggest that it is possible to do a sociological study based on human movement.
The article is organized as follows. In the first section, I provide an overview of studies on collective phenomena and on human movements in social sciences. In the second section, I analyze methods used to study human dynamics (behavior, action and movement) in social sciences and examine the pertinence and utility of using a dance notation system, especially Kinetography Laban, for studying human motion. In the third section, I present a study conducted at a Paris subway station. The fourth section shows the results of the fieldwork. In conclusion, I discuss the use of Kinetography Laban and its contribution to studies on collective phenomena in sociology.
Overview of studies on collective phenomena and human movement in social sciences
Overview of studies on collective phenomena
Studies on social phenomena involving the behavior of many anonymous individuals, called ‘crowd phenomena’ or ‘collective behavior’, have developed since the 19th century in Europe. These have concentrated on dangerous, abnormal behaviors or situations. For example, the Italian criminologist Sighele Scipio was the first to study crowds (Scipio, 1901[1891]). In psychology, the French psychologist Gustave Le Bon pioneered the study of crowd phenomena. According to his analysis, anonymity, contagion and suggestibility are essential factors that lead individuals in crowds to behave dangerously (Le Bon, 2006[1895]). Gabriel Tarde, a sociologist and lawyer, characterized two types of crowds: one a rudimentary and ephemeral crowd, and the other an organized and sustainable crowd. Tarde’s study explains the transition from a disordered phenomenon, like the crowd, to an ordered phenomenon like the public, through the process of people imitating each other (Tarde, 2007[1901]). Serge Moscovici used the term ‘mass’, and studied the relationship between individual and mass. According to his theory, suggestion or influence transforms individuals into a mass (Moscovici, 2005[1981]). Elias Canetti, too, also focused on the mass and described its four essential properties: First, the mass always tends to increase, even if there are institutions that impede its growth. Second, equality reigns within the mass. Everything is equal and the equality creates a mass. Third, the mass likes density. Finally, the mass needs a direction or a common goal for people who are present to continue to stay in the mass (Canetti, 2008[1966]).
As a subject, crowds also interested researchers in the USA, who proposed a different vision from studies conducted in Europe. The issue of crowds has been treated as a phenomenon created by the behavior of anonymous individuals called ‘collective behavior’. American sociologists Robert E. Park and Ernest Burgess, who were at the origin of the Chicago School, explained elementary collective behavior, by which they meant disordered or unstructured behavior from the psychological and social points of view. They referred to ‘social unrest’ as the restlessness that an individual feels within a group when safety, understanding or response is not realized. According to their theory, an organized and structured society could arise from the reciprocal transmission of this psychological state between its members, and from the construction of a stable action (Park & Burgess, 1921). Herbert Blumer developed a theory of ‘symbolic interaction’ and ‘non-symbolic interaction’. Non-symbolic interaction occurs spontaneously and directly between individuals. It is established without will, care or awareness on the part of individuals. Conversely, symbolic interaction is interaction that takes place when an individual responds to the meaning or significance of the action of another individual (Blumer, 1946[1939]). Neil Smelser proposed ‘the value-added theory’ to understand determinant factors that lead to the creation of collective behaviors, and explained that collective behaviors are guided by different kinds of beliefs as an appreciation of a situation, a desire and an expectation, including belief in the existence of an extraordinary force, threat, a conspiracy, etc. (Smelser, 1962). Roger W. Brown suggested a classification of ‘mass phenomena’ according to the following four criteria: (1) size of the gathering; (2) frequency of the gathering; (3) regularity of congregation, frequency; and (4) regularity of polarization of attention and continuity of identification of individuals with the group. He distinguished ‘crowd’ from ‘mass’ according to the size of the collective (Brown, 1954). The theory of ‘deindividuation’ has been developed in social psychology from Le Bon’s work to explain violent or impulsive behavior. Leon Festinger explained that the presence of a large number of anonymous individuals creates a collective responsibility; and therefore the responsibility of each is reduced (Festinger et al., 1952). Philip Zimbardo developed his idea from Festinger, and explained that, when a group is exposed to some excitation, each individual in the group is stimulated, then the excitation of the group increases. This intense excitation produces excessive sensation and forces the individual to make a quick, unfair or impulsive assessment and a decision (Diner et al., 1976; Zimbardo, 1969). The ‘Emergence Norm theory’ has been developed by Ralph Tuner and Lewis Killian. They define collective behavior as forms of social behavior in which ordinary conventions continue to guide social actions, so people collectively transcend, or ‘bypass’ and subvert ‘patterns’ and institutional structures. The Emergence Norm theory explains that the development and significance of the norm can vary according to physical and psychological conditions (Turner & Killian, 1987[1957, 1972]). Stanley Milgram and Hans Toch took a different approach from previous studies on collective behavior and were interested in the shape of the crowd and the role of this shape in influencing the crowd (Migram & Toch, 1969). Clark McPhail and David Schweingruber chose to use an individual action to analyze a collective behavior and established a set of criteria to measure the degree of collectivity (McPhail & Schweingruber, 1999).
Most of the studies on crowds and collective behavior I have summarized focus on the collective phenomenon characterized as disordered and dangerous, and its transformation into a structured, ordered or regular one. They take a theoretical approach to understanding a psychological and social mechanism of the phenomenon, and are less based on empirical work. McPhail offers the first ‘bottom-up’ approach, in which he analyzes a collective behavior by focusing on a component of the phenomenon: an action by individuals. However I note that these works do not include my research interest: human movement in the collective phenomenon.
Studies on human movement in sociology
I will examine in this section how the body is treated as an object of knowledge in sociological study and in other social science fields.
In a study of the representation of the body, Emile Durkheim (2003[1912]) opposed body and soul. The body was considered as the envelop of the soul. It also makes it possible to distinguish an individual from a collectivity. Michel Foucault (1975) analyzed the multiple functions of the body in relation to power and the politics of domination, particularly in the training of the body, under the influence of domination. Luc Boltanski (1971) established the relationship between practices related to the body and social category. Marcel Mauss (1934) and Pierre Bourdieu (1980) evoked the cultural and social differences in human movements and explained that our way of being is not natural, but is a reflection of a social signature. Mauss spoke of ‘techniques of the body’ to designate uses transmitted by tradition and forged by a society. Similarly, in Bourdieu’s concept of ‘habitus’, not only ways of thinking or feeling, but also ways of moving, holding, positioning or behaving are socially constructed. The social determination can be manifested in the body practices, structured by what Bourdieu calls ‘bodily hexis’(Bourdieu 1980). In the field of sociology of the body, the body is a central subject, a social and cultural phenomenon and a symbolic and imaginary object (Le Breton, 2005[1992]).
Studies on body motion are considered important by researchers, but this issue has been less discussed and is not a main subject in sociology, including sociology of the body. The question of the method for analyzing human motion is a key point for the development of human movement studies in social sciences. In the next section, I examine different kinds of methods used for studying human movement in social sciences and discuss their advantages and disadvantages.
Overview of studies on human movement and their methodologies
Social sciences, whose research object is human behavior or action, have developed several methods of observation and analysis of human action. Human ethology, a science of human and animal behavior derived from zoology and biology, studies human behaviors from social, cultural and evolutionary points of view. The method of analyzing behaviors consists of observation in natural situations, that is to say, not in a laboratory experimental context. Human ethologists observe human behaviors; they film and describe them in detail, then construct a list of behaviors called a ‘behavior catalogue’, for instance walking, running, raising an arm, looking at, etc. (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1972[1967]). Non-verbal communication deals with manners of communication between individuals without the use of words or language, such as bodily action, gestures, facial expressions, postures, smell, and so on. The psychologist Paul Ekman worked on facial expression and emotions, and constructed ‘FACS: Facial Action Coding System’, which is able to distinguish any type of facial movement and consists of listing facial actions (Ekman & Friesen, 1982[1972]). Adam Kendon, inspired by FACS, invented symbols based on units of facial action. This system aims to provide abbreviation signs instead of a linguistic description (Kendon, 1990). The signs can be combined with several parts of the face, such as eyebrows, mouth and eye, and researchers note the duration of the combination on the face. Ray Birdwhistell, an anthropologist, studied human motion and its role in communication. He took inspiration from a linguistic method and devised a transcription of human movement that uses symbols, alphabets and numbers, which he called ‘kinesics’ (Birdwhistell, 1970). His aim was to create an objective tool for any disciplines interested in studying human movement, action or behavior. Despite Birdwhistell’s attempt, this method is far from being able to record all movements. Paul Boussac highlighted some of its weaknesses: (1) the notation system is arbitrary or (2) is almost a shorthand; (3) the notation requires a linguistic description; (4) the cutting up of bodily dynamics remains subjective (Boussac, 1973).
In the study of interaction, the sociologist Goffman worked on individual behavior in everyday life and ways of interacting with others or in a given space or situation. He highlighted how individual behavior is arranged by an implicit agreement or a tacit consent on the part of individuals (Goffman, 1974). His theory has been applied to studies on subway users’ behavior in New York city (Levine et al., 1973). The studies contained detailed explanations of users’ behavior and interaction with others. David R. Maines (1977) worked on particularly physical contact between subway users in the New York subway. Loïc Wacquant (2002) analyzed interaction and regulation of violence during boxing training. Kendon, inspired by the works of William S. Condon and William D. Ogston (1966), who examined the synchronization and coordination of movement between two people in conversation, examined the relationship between individuals’ words and actions during conversation. He attempted to analyze the synchronization of movements and to establish a pattern in speaker and listener movements (Kendon, 1990).
Biomechanics, psychology and ergonomics also deal with human motion and have developed ways of analyzing it. Etienne-Jules Marey, a physiologist, studied the physiological and physical movement in humans and animals. Marey focused on two dimensions of movement: the inner movement, or an organic movement that we cannot perceive (e.g. with blood flowing, the heart and arteries beating or lungs that fill with and expel air in turn), and the outward movement, which is observable, such as human locomotion, different gaits of quadrupeds, the flight of birds, etc. He used chronophotography to capture a succession of limb movements at regular intervals. This approach allows the photographer to record different positions of one side of the body through a series of photos and to analyze the trajectories of body segments, especially during walking and jumping (Marey, 1886). Felix Regnault, a medical officer, in collaboration with Albert-Charlemagne-Oscar de Raoul, a military commander, studied efficient ways of walking. Their work aimed to provide an efficient way of walking speedily without tiring and is applied to military use (Regnault & De Raoul, 1898). He used a detailed descriptive method to analyze a way of walking while considering the whole body, including posture and breathing. In psychology, Blandine Bril and Rémi Goasdoué (2009) proposed another approach, emphasizing the importance of including in the analysis the aim and context of human motion because the movement is executed primarily in order to perform a task in a given environment. Their method consisted in observation: measuring the execution time, the paths of action, the contraction of body parts or muscles and body weight (Bril & Goasdoué, 2009). Ergonomics is the engineering and scientific study of the relationship between man and machine or environment; its aim is to optimize the use of the machine and the ability of the machine to reach the highest level of efficiency (Falzon, 2004). Its method is based primarily on the observation of bodily activities (e.g. postures, muscles, perceptual activities, communication, etc.) and interviews during fieldwork.
This section overviewed the methods employed by different disciplines that deal with human behavior, action and movement. The methods used in the studies on human interaction consist of filming and describing situations and behaviors. These approaches provide detailed descriptions of the behavior and a set of actions, postures in the interaction. Biomechanics, psychology and ergonomics approaches are developing systematic ways of analyzing actions, movements and postures. The observation often takes place in a particular setting, such as a laboratory or a workplace. Interest often focuses on a body part and a specific movement, aiming at efficient or optimal movement under specific conditions. The overall analysis of movements by considering the entire body is therefore not well developed. In the next section, I propose a more systematic and effective tool for the study of movements and postures: a movement notation system.
A movement notation system
Movement notation or dance notation is a method of transcribing movement using symbols or signs that was developed in the choreographic field in the 15th century in Europe. The first attempt to write down movement came from dance masters who needed to record dance movements for teaching purposes. The objective of the creation of a movement notation system is functional: it is to conserve and to transmit dance techniques. Scoring human movements is complex because the human body has a great ability to move and the movement takes place in four dimensions: width, height, depth and time (Hutchinson Guest, 1984).
Several movement notations have been invented since the Middle Ages. First, I present some examples of movement notation and clarify specific characteristics of each system from the early notation systems created in the 16th century to the present-day systems. In the second subsection, I focus on Kinetography Laban and discuss its advantages.
Historical examples of movement notation systems from the 16th century to today
Orchésographie (Arbeau, 1589), created by Thoinot Arbeau (1520–95), is the oldest notation system; it was published in 1589. This is the first manual of dance that indicates precisely the steps to perform in parallel with the musical score. The method consists of describing or explaining dance in words. So it is far from a movement notation system. However Arbeau’s attempt to put dance technique down on paper was innovative at the time.
In 1700 Raoul Auger Feuillet (1660–1720), a French dancer and choreographer, published Chorégraphie, ou l’Art de décrire la danse par caractères, figures et signes démonstratifs (Feuillet, 1700). This publication received much acclaim over a century. His work was translated for the first time in London in 1706 and in Germany in 1717. Feuillet published a country-dance 1 and an entrée de ballet, 2 which were popular dances at that time. His system specified the geometric position of individuals on the stage, and the dance steps and techniques were encoded in a rigorous and systematic manner.
Pierre Rameau (1674–1748), a French dance teacher, was inspired by Feuillet’s notation system, and in 1725 published the manual Le Maître à danser (Rameau, 1725b). His system consists of detailed descriptions of the positions of body parts and illustrations of dancers. In the same year, he published a second book: Abrégé de la nouvelle méthode dans l’art d’écrire et de tracer toutes sortes de danses de ville, in which he invented his own writing system and used signs to illustrate dancers’ positions and steps (Rameau, 1725a).
Pierre Landrin, a choreographer, engraver and notator of dance, left us a number of country-dance collections from the 18th century (Landrin, 1775). In the second half of the 18th century, the country-dance was very popular in Europe. Landrin published a description of each movement corresponding to a musical score. His notation system is more figurative than Feuillet’s. His dance score, engraved by himself, explained the dance techniques and movements, and helped to distribute repertories of country-dance in Europe.
Arthur Saint-Léon, a ballet dancer and choreographer, invented his notation system in 1852, which he entitled Sténographie ou l’art de noter promptement la danse (Saint-Léon, 1852). His method places lines in parallel to the musical score so as to clarify the time of the movement. It mentions not only the leg and arm movements, which were primarily treated in the previous notation systems, but also the upper body and head. Saint-Léon was the first to use signs that represented the human body.
Friedrich Albert Zorn, a Russian dance teacher, published a grammar of classical dance in 1905, entitled Grammar of the Art of Dancing (Zorn, 1905). The main objective was to facilitate the work of ballet masters, who needed to demonstrate rigorous dance techniques to their students. Zorn clarified the basic rules of ballet through figure drawings that corresponded to the positions of the body, including legs and arms, and ballet movements. The notation system included a musical score to be synchronized with the movements. Zorn invented drawings for each movement. However, his system did not specify the timing of the movements, even if the musical score overlapped the movement notation in order to clarify the timing of movement. Zorn’s notation system was designed for the ballet. It is therefore far from a method that allows us to transcribe just any kind of movement.
Vladimir I. Stepanov, a Russian dancer, was inspired by the musical score and invented a notation system and published a book in French entitled Alphabet des movements du corps humain (Stepanov, 1892). In this system, the movements are analyzed in terms of the articulation of the body and its capacity to move. It enables us to describe basic directions, flexion, extension, rotation, abduction and adduction. The notation uses musical signs and is designed to note general movements, not just those of classical dance.
Pierre Conté, inspired by the work of Etienne-Jules Marey in biomechanics and by the notation system created by Rudolf Laban, invented his own writing system for movement and published a book entitled Ecriture de la danse théâtrale et de la danse en general (Conté, 1931). Conté was trained in music, and his notation system was strongly influenced by the musical score. Similar to Stepanov’s notation, he attributes the characters of movement to musical notes.
Rudolf Benesh, an accountant trained in mathematics, designed the Benesh Movement Notation in 1955, in collaboration with his wife, who was a ballet dancer (Benesh & Benesh, 1956). Their aim was to create an educational and useful tool for ballet and any other type of human movements. The principle of Benesh Movement Notation is to depict the body scheme in space and the path of movement in time. The writing system employs a five-line musical staff. Each body part refers to one of the five lines. The symbols look like stick figures. The notation is read from left to right, like a musical score. Benesh invented an efficient notation system capable of describing any kind of movement. The system is based on scoring structural body shapes, and was made to record movement quickly.
The Eshkol-Wachman Movement Notation (EWMN) was created in 1958 in Israel by Noa Eshkol, a dancer and dance theorist, and Abraham Wachman, an architect and student of Eshkol’s (Eshkol & Wachman, 1958). After studying the Laban system, Eshkol attempted to create her own notation system, which would record all human and animal movements and could be independent of a dance style. The system uses a table in which the rows represent the human body, and the columns represent the passing of time. The movements are represented by symbols (numbers and abbreviations), which are placed in the table cells.
Kinetography Laban
Concept of movement in Laban notation
Kinetography Laban is a method of recording human movements whatever they may be. It was designed by Rudolf Laban (1879–1958), a dancer, choreographer, pedagogue and dance theorist, and was published in 1928. Laban considers human movements as dynamic and ephemeral bodily architecture. The body and a body part trace a path of a certain form when they move. The movements therefore trace a path in space, and the aim of scoring is to describe this trajectory (Laban, 2003[1984]). To do so, Laban determines the three concepts that are fundamental elements of movement: space, time and body. The notion of space refers to the direction in which the movement is made: In what direction is the body part or a whole body moving? The notion of time concerns the duration of the action and the beginning and the end of the movement: How long does the movement last; or when does the movement start? The body that performs the movement is analyzed to specify which parts of the body move.
What can we note with Kinetography Laban?
Laban notation was created from human movement. It can therefore note all types of movements, such as individual actions, actions with other individuals, actions with objects, actions in a group, actions in the air, actions in water.
An individual action means an action such as walking, running and jumping, an action on the ground (sleeping, sitting and rolling over), facial expressions, breathing, muscle twitching and other gestures. An action performed with other individuals refers to a dance in a couple, such as ballroom dancing, martial arts techniques, shaking hands, looking at each other, and so on. Using Laban notation, we can also describe our actions with objects. For instance, threading a needle has been notated (Preston-Dunlop, 1969). Manipulation of objects can be recorded (holding, throwing, carrying, taking an object, etc.). The movement of an object can also be recorded (e.g. the trajectory of a ball falling to the ground). A group action designates actions performed simultaneously by several individuals in a given order so that all performers perform the same action in a group (Challet-Haas, 1999). In dance, a scene interpreted by the corps de ballet 3 can illustrate this type of action. An action in the air can be also notated, for example, cartwheels, somersaults or swinging on a trapeze. An action in water differs from other actions because the hydraulic pressure and the decrease in gravity influence the movements. A dance piece by Daniel Larrieu in water has been recorded in Kinetography Laban (Peralta, 2007). Laban notation can record all types of movements observable by our eyes, in everyday life, sport and dance.
Criticism of Kinetography Laban
Today Laban notation is increasingly known and used in the dance field. Yet it is still not well known in the academic field because it is often considered a tool that applies only to dance. Such a restrictive interpretation of Laban notation prevents its application to scientific research.
Laban notation has also been criticized as describing only large units of movement but not in detail. However, I argue that Laban notation makes scoring detailed movement according to our needs possible. For instance, I can choose to describe walking as ‘putting one foot in front of the other without taking into account the legs’ bending levels and soles of the foot’.
A third objection often refers to the difficulty of learning Laban notation because of the large number of symbols involved (Harrigan, 2005). However the number of symbols is limited. A greater difficulty lies in the analyses of movements, that is to say in describing what exactly is happening in the body when we walk or when we fall, etc. This kind of analysis is laborious. But it allows us to better understand the movements. It is not using Laban notation that is difficult, but understanding the movement.
Laban notation is often criticized for its rigorous way of describing human movement in choreography. The criticism is based on the fact that a rigorous notation prevents dancers interpreting the work in their own way. However performing from dance scores does not mean that a performer’s interpretation is excluded. On the contrary, the rigor of the system allows deep reflection on the movement. The interest of scoring the movement does not consist only in storage and transmission of choreographic works but also in analyzing the movement and the composition of a dance, as a tool of reflection (Louppe, 2007; Marthouret, 2001, cited in Louppe, 2007).
Advantages of Laban notation
I sometimes encounter the argument that filmed data is sufficient to observe and analyze human movement. This is not true. The reasons why a filmed image is not sufficient to analyze human movement consist, first, in the absence of criteria to describe a movement. It is difficult to describe a movement without criteria, and the lack of criteria can lead to ignoring certain movements. Second, there is a fundamental difference between filmed data and notated data. The first gives only partial or peripheral perspectives, while the latter provides a perspective in which the actor is central and where we may collect the identity of the movement in question (Farnell, 1994).
As I discussed in the previous section, the methods of motion analysis developed in the social sciences, including ethology, non-verbal communication and ergonomics, consist mainly of the linguistic description or recoding of behaviors based on abbreviations. These methods can identify actions (standing, walking, sitting, etc.), but they fail to consider the ‘how’.
Construction of a subject of sociological study by Laban notation
Laban notation can be considered as a language with grammatical rules for describing movement. The notation process can be compared to a language translation. The notation translates human movements into signs. To be sure, this is a qualitative method and it involves some subjectivity because the notation is done by a person who transcribes his/her observations. The ability of the notator can therefore influence the analysis. Thus the same movement would probably be noted in slightly different ways by different notators. However, the system itself is objective, since all movements and all body parts are designated by signs. The movements can therefore be objectively scored. As for potential differences in scoring between different notators, the notators can discuss and then reduce them.
In my research, the process of transcription of human movement by Laban notation aims to make ‘movements’ into tangible objects. The transcription process is the objectification of a phenomenon created by the body in space and in time. Kinetography Laban allows us to describe explicitly a way of moving.
Laban notation is not only a tool for recording human motion but also a motion-analysis tool. Just as writing is used not only to save but also to think, Laban notation is not just for recording, it also serves to see and to learn how to observe. If sociologists agree that movement could be a subject of sociological study, this idea remains more or less an intuition of researchers because of a lack of empirical study. Laban notation can help treat body movement objectively and turn it into concrete object of study.
Fieldwork at a Paris Metro subway station and notations
My research aim is to study a collective phenomenon in public space from the standpoint of human movement and postures. For this purpose, the fieldwork was conducted in the Paris subway, on line number 14, the newest and the automated line of the Paris public transport operator (RATP, Régie Autonome des Transports Parisiens), during rush hour in a high-density situation. I specifically selected an entrance space to the train, called the ‘floor-space’, inside the metro car. Our observation consisted of filming and scoring passengers entering or exiting a car of the train, or waiting in this area while the train stopped at the station.
The procedure consisted of three phases:
Collection of data by Subcam; filming metro passenger during their trip in rush hour 7:30–9:30 am and 4:30–7:30 pm for a week (not weekends).
Notation of video data by Kinetograpy Laban.
Analysis of the notations (transcribing data).
Collection of data by Subcam: In situ observation
What is Subcam?
For this study, it was necessary to record a real situation in high density to collect data in a Paris subway. The camera device ‘Subcam’ (subjective camera), designed by Saadi Lahlou was used for this purpose (Lahlou, 2006). Subcam is a pair of glasses incorporating a small camera in the frame. A DVD recorder and a sound recording system are also attached to the device system. Subcam makes a video of what the wearer is seeing. I consider this to be a practical and relevant way to film in a dense location on the subway, considering the following points:
- Subcam allows the wearer to move freely.
- It can film a large space.
- It allows filming during trips.
- It is not a hidden camera but is sufficiently discrete not to disturb subway passengers. In the course of a preliminary experiment, we observed that the use of Subcam in a public space had no impact on passengers’ behaviors.
Collecting data by Subcam
The data was collected by six regular users of line 14. Each user wore the Subcam during their travel from home to work and vice versa on two or three dates. In total, 78 train-stop situations were filmed. Then I chose 33 situations that corresponded to the dense situation since not all cases satisfied the criteria of density 4 (Bruce, 1965).
Notation of data
The 33 cases were transcribed by Laban notation. I identified three major categories of movements and postures that could be important to my study. The first consists of the way people place themselves on the floor-space of the train, before entering or after exiting. The second is the way people use their body, or lean or hold a support like a bar, a wall handle in the car, etc., when they stand in the train. The third is the way people cross a gap between the train and the platform. I call these bodily movements and postures ‘bodily techniques’, based on the ideas of Mauss and Bourdieu mentioned earlier, which designate a set of movements and postures that allow us to adapt the body to its environment. This is a way of moving (dynamic) or a way of staying (postures) resulting from a conscious or unconscious strategy, established in education or culture, influenced by the environmental context or many other external factors.
Placing techniques
The placing technique is the way one places (chooses a location) and orients oneself (which direction the body is facing) on the floor-space inside the metro car. More precisely, the way of placing and orienting oneself according to a situation or a specific area like the subway that is not static because the train is moving. The question of the position and orientation of the body in the floor-space becomes significant in relation to travelers’ strategies and their intentions, desires, need for comfort, etc. Figure 1 gives an example of notation of placing techniques.
Examples of notation of placing techniques.
Description of the notation
The large sketch (called ‘floor-pattern’ in Laban notation) in the center represents the positions of the travelers on the floor-space inside the metro car and their trajectories (Figure 1). There are 11 people – five women (represented by white pins) and six men (represented by black pins). Nine people at the door are exiting. Their trajectory is heading ‘forward-left’ in a circular manner. Some people are exiting from the right of the train, but their number and gender are not identifiable in the filmed data. Their trajectory traces a curve. The Subcam holder (a woman ‘s’) is outside the car at the time the door opens. She enters the train and crosses the floor-space of the train to sit. She walks straight and then changes her direction to the right of the space.
The two floor-patterns, located bottom-right, indicate two situations. The left floor-pattern indicates the positions of the travelers before the door opens. It describes a man numbered ‘1A’ sitting on a fold-down seat and is oriented to the right. Other individuals – ‘2’, ‘3’, ‘4’, ‘5, ‘6’, ‘7, ‘8’ and ‘9’ – are located in front of the door of the car. The right-hand floor-pattern shows individual positions after the door closes. Here, it shows man ‘10’ standing in front of the door and woman ‘11A’ sitting on a fold-down seat facing the direction of travel.
Pausing techniques
This technique refers the way the body is ‘used’ – leaning or holding on to a support like a bar, a wall handle, etc., when standing inside the train (Figure 2). This technique is related to balance and comfort. In a dense situation, it is not always possible to sit on a fold-down seat. Thus, almost all travelers on the floor-space are obliged to stand. Generally, they lean against the door, the wall, the bar, or hold on to a handrail or a seat handle. The following questions will guide our understanding of this technique:
- When the body is leaning on a support, what body parts are in contact with the support?
- What are the positions of the arms that hold a handrail?
- What is the relationship between the arm and support positions?
- How does the body hold a support? Is there ‘contact with weight’ or ‘without weight’?
Examples of notation of the pausing techniques.
Description of the notation
There are five individual scores (A, B, C, D and E) notated from video data filmed on 12 March 2010 at the Gare de Lyon (one of line 14’s stations) (Figure 2):
A: a woman stands. Her way of placing her feet is unobservable. She stands facing the ‘left side’ of the given space. She carries a large bag on her right shoulder. Her left arm is invisible. Her right arm is bent (right elbow oriented ‘down and 15 degree forwards’, the right forearm is positioned ‘forward’ and ‘15 degrees high-forward’). The right hand holds a three-branch handrail (BM3) located ‘right-forward’ of the person.
B: a man stands. The placement of his feet is unobservable. He is oriented ‘forward’ in the given space. His center of gravity is positioned slightly back. The back of the trunk rests on the door of the train.
C: a woman stands. The placement of her feet is unobservable. Her body is oriented ‘backward’ in the given space. Her center of gravity is positioned slightly ‘left-backward’. Her left arm is invisible. The upper left arm leans against a handrail. She has a medium-sized bag on her right shoulder. The bag touches the ‘right side’ of her chest. Her right elbow is positioned ‘15 degrees forward-low’. Her forearm is positioned ‘high left-forward’ and touches the front of her thorax.
D: a woman stands. The placement of her feet is unobservable. Her orientation is ‘forward’ in the given space. Her center of gravity is positioned slightly ‘backward’. Her right arm is unobservable. Her left elbow is located in an intermediate direction: between ‘middle left-forward’ and ‘high left-forward’. Her forearm is positioned in the intermediate direction, between ‘left-forward’ and ‘high left-forward’. The back of her pelvis leans against the door of the train. Her hand holds the three-branch handrail, which is located at her ‘right-forward’ direction.
E: a woman stands. The placement of her feet is unobservable. She turns her trunk slightly to the ‘right’. Her right and left elbows are positioned ‘bottom/low’. Her right forearm is positioned in the intermediate direction between ‘middle left’ and ‘low left’ and touches the front of her thorax. Her left forearm is positioned ‘high forward-right’. She has a medium-sized bag whose strap passes over the middle of her left forearm. She leans her waist and her pelvis against the back of the seat.
Crossing techniques and social context
The crossing techniques designate the way of crossing a gap between the train and the station platform when travelers enter or exit a train. I observe and describe particularly head and leg movement and weight transfer during the crossing. I am obliged to exclude other body parts like the arms and the back because of the difficulty of observing filmed data.
The two previous techniques, placing and pausing techniques, focus only on individual posture techniques in train-stop situations. Concerning the crossing technique, I examine the relationship between the crossing technique and the social contexts. How can social contexts influence movement techniques? Is there a pattern of movement according to different contextual criteria? I try to analyze these two factors – the movements during the crossing and three types of social contexts – as they relate to the question of density: (1) density of the floor-space inside the metro car, (2) flow of entering passengers and (3) flow of exiting passengers. I first examine the movements of entering and exiting passengers during the crossing. Then I analyze how the crossing technique varies according to three contextual criteria.
Description of notation
The following is the notation of the crossing technique of a woman who is entering the train (Figure 3). Her legs are not quite observable, but the way she crosses the gap is sufficiently perceptible from observing her whole body. Her orientation is ‘left-backward’. Her face is oriented to an intermediate direction between ‘middle-forward’ and ‘low-forward’. The position of her legs is not determined. Her arms cannot be observed. She crosses the gap with her left foot. When her left foot touches the ground, she releases her weight slightly. Then she takes three short steps. She slows her speed when crossing.
Example of notation of crossing techniques.
Description of the notation
The density on the floor-space is calculated by the ratio of the surface of the floor-space to the number of individuals observed. The parts of the floor-space unobservable in the recorded data are shaded and ignored when calculating the density. Thus the density is calculated from the observed surface and the number of people observed (Figure 4).
Example of notations for calculating the density on the floor-space inside the metro car before the door opens.
The sketch of ‘floor-patterns’ of the floor-space contains 15 individuals (four men and 11 women). The red and blue circles around a pin mean a body volume (red for woman: 4–14 and blue for a man: 1, 2, 3 and 15). The volume of the body is calculated from the shoulder diameter and the thickness of the body. Here the floor-space area is 7 m2, and the observable area corresponds to 4.2 m2. The density then is 15 individuals: 15/4.2 m2 = 3.57.
Results of the fieldwork
Results of the placing techniques
The total number of individuals observed in 33 cases for the pausing techniques is 472, including 106 exiting passengers, 99 entering passengers and 267 stating passengers on the floor-space inside the metro car. In 30 cases observed (note that in three cases out of the 33 studied, the rails on the side of the closed door are unobservable because of the high density), at least one individual is placed near the closed door.
On the floor-space inside the metro car, 325 passengers were observed. The orientations of 325 individuals were as follows: 54% (177 individuals) of passengers were oriented toward the exit door, 9% (28 individuals) in the direction of travel of the train, 37% (120 individuals) were oriented in other directions (neither exit door nor direction of travel).
Results of pausing techniques
In the 33 train-stop situations, 130 individuals were observed so as to analyze the pausing techniques.
Types of pausing
Among the 130 individuals observed, 52% (67 individuals) hold a support, 41% (53 individuals) rely on a support, and 7% (10 individuals) combine the two techniques, that is to say they hold and rely on a support, or two body parts are leaning.
Types of support
The analysis shows that of the 72 individuals who hold a support, 74% (53 individuals) hold on to a ‘three-branch handrail’ located in the center of the floor-space, 18% (13 individuals) hold a ‘handrail situated next to the door’, 8% (6 individuals) hold a ‘seat handle’ or a ‘longitudinal bar fixed to the ceiling of the train’.
Relations between the positions of the body and position of a support
Here I focus on the position of the body with regard to a support. I observed seven positions of support. The support is located:
In front of the body.
Between ‘forward’ and ‘left-forward’ of the body.
Between ‘forward’ and ‘right-forward’ of the body.
Left-forward in relation to the body.
Right-forward in relation to the body.
On the left side of the body.
On the right side of the body.
The results show, first, that no passengers use supports located behind their body. The most frequently observed position (39%) is the ‘C’ position: between ‘forward’ and ‘right-forward’ of the body. The other positions ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘D’, ‘E’ and ‘G’ are used in approximately the same proportion (10%–11%). The least observed position is ‘F’: on the left side of the body (7%).
Contact types of holding support
Kinetography Laban allows some precisions in the description of the relationship between our body and another body or object. One of the specifications of the contact is related to the use of one’s own weight. I propose two ways to hold a support: contact ‘with weight’ or ‘without weight’. (1) Contact with weight means holding a support by enforcing the weight of the body. This technique enables in particular the legs to support less Kinetography weight and to be comfortable because the weight of the body is distributed. (2) Contact without weight: this means holding a support without placing the body weight or leaning on it. It is merely to touch a support with a body part, the hand or arm.
Among the 72 individuals observed, I found that 81% (58 individuals) of the observed passengers hold a support ‘with weight’ against 19% (14 individual) ‘without weight’. Then I analyzed the contact type according to three support categories : ‘three-branch handrail’ (53 individuals), ‘handrail situated netx to the door’ (13 indiviudals), and ‘seat handle or longitudinal bar fixed to the ceiling of the train’ (6 individuals). Concering ‘three-branch handrail”, 81% (43 individual) are holding it ‘with weight’ against 19% (10 individuals) ‘without weight’ and concerning ‘hadrail situated next to the door’, 92% (12 individuals) are holing it ‘with weight’ agaist 8% ‘without weight’ (1 individual). For holding a ‘seat handle’ or a ‘longitudinal bar fixed to the ceiling of the train’, there are no significant differences in the use of the weight.
Position of arm holding a support
I observed the arm positions of the 66 individuals who hold a ‘three-branch handrail’, a ‘handrail situated next to the door’. I excluded the number of people holding a ‘seat handle’ and a ‘longitudinal bar fixed to the ceiling of the train’ because the location of these supports conditions the position of the arms that hold them. For this purpose, I determinate the three levels of the positions as following:
High: the end of the arm is located above the shoulders.
Middle: the end of the arm is between the pelvis and shoulders.
Low: the end of the arm is below the hips.
The result is that 88% of individuals position their arms at the middle level while 7% use the high level and 7% the low level.
Leaning against a support: Body parts used to lean against a support and double support
I focus on which body parts are used to lean against a support. The analysis shows that, for 42% of individuals, the body part used to lean against a support is ‘between the waist and pelvis’, 30% of individuals use the ‘trunk’ to lean on a support, 17% use the ‘back’, 9% ‘arms’, and 2% ‘waist’.
I also analyze the relationship between the body part used to lean and the type of support. For instance, those who use the body part ‘between the waist and pelvis’ rely on a fold-down seat. Among those who use their ‘back’, most individuals lean against the train door. The analysis shows that, of 130 individuals observed, ten individuals used double supports. Over half of these cases consisted of a combination of arm holding a ‘three-branch handrail’ and pressing a body part ‘between the waist and pelvis’ against the back of a folding seat.
Results for crossing techniques
I observed and notated a total of 141 individuals, including 71 exiting passengers and 70 entering passengers, in 33 train-stop situations.
Movement of crossing techniques
I observed and described head and leg movement and weight transfer during the crossing. My notation allows identification of a series of movements and their frequency. I observed that ‘the speed change (slow)’ (35%), ‘the tilt of the head’ (57%) and ‘the small steps’ (38%) are the most frequently observed movements (see Table 1).
Chart of movements of crossing techniques.
Comparing the exiting and entering passengers, I find that exiting passengers ‘tilt the head’ more often than entering passengers (68% against 43%). Similarly, ‘before adjustment’, which means a preparation movement before crossing a gap between train and platform, is observed more in the exiting passengers (25%) than the entering passengers (1%). ‘Slow speed of walk’ is observed with almost the same frequency in both passengers (31% for exiting and 39% for entering). The same is true for ‘leg movement’ (8% for exiting and 9% for entering). However, I see a big difference concerning ‘sole on ground’. This movement is observed particularly in the exiting passengers (26%) while frequency is very low for the entering passengers (1%).
Correlation between movement and social context
I observed a relationship between the observed movement and the three social contexts related to the question of the density: (1) density of the floor-space; (2) flow of entering passengers; and (3) flow of exiting passengers. The statistical analysis shows a relationship between the movement of the entering and exiting passengers and these social contexts. The results are as follows:
- Entering passengers employ a ‘slow speed of walk’ when: ‘the density is low’ (70.4%), there are ‘many entering passengers’(66.7%) or there are ‘more than five exiting passengers’ (66.7%).
- Entering passengers walk with ‘small steps’ when: there are ‘no exiting passengers’(54%).
- Exiting passengers ‘slow their walk’ (54.5%) when: ‘the density is high’ and when there are ‘few (less than five) exiting passengers’ (54.5%).
- Exiting passengers ‘tilt the head’ when: there are ‘many (more than five) exiting passengers’ (61%).
- Exiting passengers do ‘before adjustment’ when: ‘the density is high’ (55.6%) and there are ‘fewer exiting passengers’ (61.1%).
- Exiting passengers take ‘small steps’ when: ‘the density is high’ (84.4%), there are ‘few entering passengers’ (75%).
Conclusion: Towards a sociology of movement
This research had two aims. The first was to study a social collective phenomenon in a public space through individuals’ movements and postures; the second was to apply Kinetography Laban to the study of a collective phenomenon. I observed that existing studies on crowds and collective behavior, which I discussed at the beginning of the article, focus on the mechanisms and formation processes of anonymous and disordered phenomena. These studies do not elaborate on the individual aspect or human movement, and empirical studies on the phenomenon of crowd or collective behavior are lacking. My empirical approach enriches the theoretical studies on the mechanisms and processes of crowd formation and collective behavior.
I used Kinetograpy Laban to analyze the movement of Paris subway passengers. The criteria for movement established by the Laban system contain the notions of space, time and body, and help ‘feed the eyes’ of researchers and provide sufficient references for analyzing such action or conduct.
I suggested that a powerful tool, but one that is little known in social science, could help develop research on the sociology of movement. Indeed, Laban notation, until now exclusively developed in the dance field, allows us to objectify bodily movement by transcribing it into symbols. This work shows that it is possible to note daily movements and postures by using a recording device adapted to an ordinary situation, the ‘Subcam’, together with Kinetography Laban.
The results clearly show that Laban notation makes bodily postures analyzable: I was able to identify ‘placing techniques’ and ‘pausing techniques’ as well as correlation between the way of crossing the gap and conditions of density in public space, for which I use the term ‘crossing techniques’. The relationship between human motion and social or cultural factors, that is to say certain ways of being or moving, can vary with gender, social class and culture, an observation that has already been made in the work of sociologists like Mauss (1934), Bourdieu (1980) and Boltanski (1971). However, their ideas were never demonstrated by an empirical study because of the lack of a tool to make a rigorous study.
This empirical research shows concretely the relationship between ways of moving and given social contexts. A certain way of crossing a gap is strongly related to density, to the flow of entering or exiting passengers. This means that ‘crossing a gap’ is not an arbitrary action, but more or less consciously or unconsciously conditioned. Certainly, the three categories of social contexts I proposed are limited if I want to analyze the totality of the action; I could also consider other criteria (e.g. gender, age, social category or trip purpose). However, even this limited number clearly establishes the undeniable dependence of movements on circumstances.
The scoring process of Laban notation objectifies human movements and bodily postures and offers a way to develop Mauss’s and Bourdieu’s works. Human motion and postures can be treated as ‘social facts’ which ‘consist of manners of acting, thinking and feeling external to the individual, which are invested with a coercive power by virtue of which they exercise control over him’, according to Durkheim (1967[1894]). Human movement can correspond to the criteria of a social fact as defined by Durkheim (1967[1894]): generality, externality, collective power and historical criteria. First, I observed a certain generalization of ways of being and acting in our objects of study. I observed passengers’ movement patterns and postures. These movements and postures can be treated as general ways in which passengers move in studied contexts. Second, human movement and bodily postures can be considered as an external fact that is apparent to and observable by others. In addition, they are subject to collective power, that is to say, the way of acting is not the result of an individual choice but is conditioned by social, environmental and technical (in the case of the subway for example) factors. Finally, concerning the historical criteria, it appears that certain physical techniques can be generalized over the long term.
I demonstrated step by step the possibility of a sociology of movement: first, I identified and objectified movements and bodily postures by using Laban notation, then I analyzed them in different social contexts. I have shown that individual and corporeal elements can be studied from a sociological perspective, enabling crowd phenomena or collective behavior to be processed through this new object of study that is human movement.
Footnotes
Funding
This research was done in a doctoral thesis under the direction of Eric Brian and Dominique Lestel between 2008-2011 within the framework of the CIFRE (Convention Industrielle de Formation par la Recherche) at the EHESS in collaboration with the RATP.