Confirmation of Focus

We decided that the focus will be the effects of Kalaripayattu itself and not the languages that can be used to discourse the effects of Kalaripayattu. This is so as to stay focussed on one area which I felt I had more interests in. It is also because it's an area that helps people understand the significance of Zarilli's work in incorporating Kalaripayattu into actor training.

At the same time, I established that I don't want to assess the effectiveness of the technique but rather just state the effects. I felt that to come up with a judgment on effectiveness needs alot more time and a sizeable sample group of people who have been trained in Zarilli's technique. This makes it impossible to achieve with our current constrains. Furthermore, assessing the effectiveness of something requires a measure of sorts of effectiveness. As such, the optimal state for performance might already have a different measure under a cultural understanding, a contemporary theatre understanding and a pschological and biological understanding.

However, deciding just to discuss the effects in different forms of discourse brings about this question: Why do we NEED all these forms of discourse? How does that contribute to academia? Firstly, my personal experience in voice class yielded that I benefitted from knowing both biological facts about vocal cords and metaphorical language used to evoke images during the training process. In other words, I am an example of someone that benefits from a pedagogy that uses different forms of discourse to reach the students. Secondly, looking at this practice from view points of different fields help people with different backgrounds understand the importance of his work. Thirdly, it helps break down the existing separation between arts and science. By using different forms of epistemology to understand his work, it debunks the thought that Zarrilli's work is mysticism and has no real physical benefit on the actor. Fourthly, the most accepted understanding of the body is that of biology and modern medicine. By using the most up-to-date knowledge of the body to understand the effects of a traditional practice, it not only serves to communicate to the modern audience better, it addresses the issue of its relevance to modern actors.

I made it clear that I didn't wanna debate the use of different epistemologies in the paper but will state my reasons for doing so in the introduction section. There, I'll do a brief lit review to demonstrate reasons why I think its beneficial to use different forms of discourse.

I established that I will only use interviewees that have trained under Zarilli's technique rather than people who trained in just Kalaripayattu, to make things more relevant. At the same time, I'll try to experience Kalaripayattu first-hand myself and document my findings....

Other than logistical stuff... we didn't really talk much. I was just left with the parting shot that I should think about the necessity of the demystification of Zarilli's language in his approach.

K8