Dance/movement therapy with mothers and young children at risk of abuse

Abstract

The literature on dance/movement therapy (DMT) with mothers and young children is sparse, though there are some descriptive or case study reports in the United States (Bell, 1984; Kestenberg & Buelte, 1977; Murphy, 1979; Ostrov, 1981), and there have been two small studies of such work in England (Graham, 1984; Meekums 1988). There is, however, considerable information on the nature of functional and dysfunctional mother-child interaction. Winnicott’s (1960/1965) writings on what he called the “holding environment” are of particular relevance. Winnicott suggested that the holding environment is initially “a three-dimensional or space relationship with time gradually added” (p, 44). According to Winnicott, the child’s ability to progress toward maturity depends at least in part on the mother’s ’ ability to provide a secure holding environment during infancy. Kestenberg and Buelte (1977) emphasized the importance of mutual holding between mother and infant for the infant’s development toward later selfreliance. Dulicai’s (1977) research suggested that functional families are more likely to display molding, that is, fitting into or around each other’s body shapes, and less likely to exhibit static body attitudes, than are dysfunctional families. Although Dulicai used a small sample, her results have been confirmed by other researchers trained by her, including one study concerning adoptive families (Webster, 1987). Silberstein (1984) suggested that for the older child, the tendency toward molding is replaced to some extent by the mother’s frequent glances toward her toddler. The presence of interactional synchrony* as an indicator of empathy has long been assumed (Condon, 1968). Kestenberg (1975) suggested that synchronization of rhythms is necessary for the “attunement” commonly experienced by mother and infant. A study by Fraenkel (1983), however, suggests that, in adult interactions perceived as empathic by the participants, echoing rather than synchrony is an indicator, particularly once interaction is established, whereas synchrony is more prevalent in the first ten minutes. Echoing is perhaps more likely within the framework of a conversation, in which verbalizations do not occur synchronously but in a process of give and take. It is possible that this process is built through the mother’s early responses to the infant; both Ostrov (1981) and Schaffer (1977) emphasized the need for the mother to follow the focus of the child, rather than lead. Schaffer (1977) wrote of the ‘ ‘pseudo-dialogue, ’ ’ during which the mother responds to her infant as if they were holding a conversation, and in this way, he claimed, the infant learns reciprocity. Thus reciprocity and echoing may have a greater significance than synchrony in determining healthy interactions between a mother and toddler, although this is by no means clear. Synchrony has often been associated with the developmental stage that Mahler (1974/1979) called symbiosis. However, Brown and Avstreih (1989) challenged this notion, suggesting that “synchrony implies a harmonious and simultaneous responsiveness without merger or loss of boundaries or self/object differentiation” (p.157). In fact, they went on to suggest that the capacity for synchrony appears to be greatly enhanced in the creative individual when it is associated with an intensified awareness of self.