Is There a Correlation Between Static and Dynamic Postural Balance Among Young Male and Female Dancers?

Aimed to investigate whether young male and female dancers have different patterns of association between static and dynamic postural balance (PB), 60 dancers from the Australian Ballet School (14–19 years old) were tested for static and dynamic PB with head and lumbar accelerometers. Monotonic relationships between static and dynamic PB were found in head movements among young female dancers in all three directions, but were found for young male dancers in the mediolateral (ML) and anteroposterior (AP) directions only. In lumbar movements, monotonic relationships were found for young female dancers in the AP direction only. Comparing head with lumbar movements in static PB, young male dancers demonstrated monotonic relationships between head and lumbar movements in all 3 directions; however, young female dancers demonstrated monotonic relationships in the AP direction only. In the dynamic measurements, both male and female dancers demonstrated monotonic relationships between head and lumbar movements for all parameters measured in the ML and vertical directions (p < .05). In conclusions, among female dancers static PB ability is correlated with their dynamic ability, whereas among male dancers, no relationship between the static and dynamic PB in the AP direction exists. Male dancers showed head and lumbar coordination in the static PB movement, but both genders manifested no head and lumbar coordination in the AP direction measured for dynamic PB.     

Situating Martin Heidegger's claim to a “productive dialogue” with Marxism

This critical review aims to more fully situate the claim Martin Heidegger makes in “Letter on Humanism” that a “productive dialogue” between his work and that of Karl Marx is possible. The prompt for this is Paul Laurence Hemming's recently published Heidegger and Marx: A Productive Dialogue over the Language of Humanism which omits to fully account for the historical situation which motivated Heidegger's seemingly positive endorsement of Marxism. This piece will show that there were significant external factors which influenced Heidegger's claim and that, when seen within his broader corpus, these particular comments in “Letter on Humanism” are evidently disingenuous, given that his general opinion of Marxism can only be described as vitriolic. Any attempt to explore how such a “productive dialogue” could be construed must fully contextualise Heidegger's claim for it. This piece will aim to do that, and more broadly explore Heidegger's general opinion of Marxism.