Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past three decades, Berlin-based movement teacher Elsa Gindler (1885-1961) has received increasing recognition as a pioneer of Somatic practices, body-based psychotherapy and performance techniques. Still, she is little known even within these fields, and her wider relevance remains unexplored. Reading Elsa Gindler addresses the various ways Gindler’s work has been transmitted and passed down, including oral histories, published materials, archival documents and embodied practices. The turbulent conditions of Gindler’s lifetime have led to gaps and discrepancies in what we know about her. Her resistance against the National Socialist regime, the destruction of her papers at the end of World War Two, and the departure of many of her students fleeing Nazi persecution have meant that there are several different “versions” of Gindler. Yet these very challenges make her an important subject for historiographic research. In Reading Elsa Gindler, I amplify the scant information available about her in English by translating materials that have so far only been available in German. I contextualize Gindler within the rich and competitive body culture of her time. I also examine the tradition of physical culture often traced back to François Delsarte (1811-1871) which fed into Gindler’s work. I report on my own visits to the Berlin-based foundation dedicated to Gindler’s memory and that of her close colleague, Heinrich Jacoby. The Foundation maintains a unique balance of archival preservation and continuity of practice. Though my in-person research was limited by pandemic travel restrictions, I was able to study Gindler’s embodied work with those who maintain it in the present. Though Reading Elsa Gindler adds substantially to the information about Gindler, my approach is not to try to create a seamless account. Rather, I look at the various layers of information as sources, drawing attention, wherever possible, to the narrative, editorial, curatorial and pedagogical choices which have been made in presenting them. The gaps and discontinuities in Gindler’s story allow for contemplation of what various types of materials can uniquely add to historical research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".