Most Rolfers probably have at least passing familiarity with Jeff Maitland?s concept of ?the three paradigms.?1 As students in the basic Rolfing® Structural Integration (SI) training, we were introduced to them to help us understand how the goals of a holistic therapy, i.e., Rolfing SI, differ fundamentally from therapies oriented toward either relaxation or correcting diseases or other problems.

This concept seems to me to be clear and concise, capable of basically defining the scope of our work both to ourselves and to outside audiences. However, as the domain of Maitland?s holistic paradigm is broad enough so as to include such arts as homeopathy and acupuncture as well as Rolfing SI, it does not relate concretely to the actual process of integration that occurs in our offices and classrooms.

Considering this, it occurred to me that students of Rolfing SI might be served by an additional set of paradigms, which would mentally organize the variety of functional approaches we use during sessions. This set would need to be more concrete than abstract, and flexibly oriented toward the intentions and assumptions behind specific interventions, while maintaining the integrity of each of its constituent paradigms. It would help the beginner to understand the array of options available in the service of our Rolfing SI work. Here is a basic sketch of three paradigms designed to fill this order, which I term the functional paradigms.

The fixing paradigm: This is work undertaken to fix a problem or imbalance, either as an end in and of itself or as a means to a holistic end. Examples include de-rotating a vertebra, waking up a sleepy motor nerve, or having a client actively stretch a tight muscle. The underlying mindset is that something is ?wrong,? or out of balance, and is to be corrected. Using fuzzier parlance, phrases like ?could find more ease? replace ?is to be corrected,? but the basis of linearly exploring a possibility for change is consistent. The types of interventions that accomplish this end are, therefore, often applied by therapists working in Maitland?s corrective paradigm, but in the employ of the holistic paradigm they become means to change the ?whole? by changing one or more of its particular parts. Therefore, this and the corrective paradigm are not at all synonymous.

The exercise paradigm: here ?exercise? is not defined as corrective exercise, for instance as prescribed by physical therapists, but as any practice undertaken to improve health in a more general sense. The premise here is not that something is wrong, but that things could be better or prevented from going wrong down the road. Exercises are done according to a more-or-less defined routine and often are repeated on a schedule. Examples include t?ai chi, weightlifting, running, and some types of massage. Active participation of the client is a common trait, but engaged awareness is not always a major component, especially when an intervention is used within Maitland?s relaxation paradigm or corrective paradigm. The exercise paradigm seems by far the least commonly employed by Rolfers. (In my Rolfing SI practice, I often recommend to clients that they undertake some practice such as yoga for their general benefit, but rarely work in this paradigm myself.)

The exploratory paradigm: this approach is exclusively somatic, and depends upon and develops the client?s self-awareness. The idea here is not to fix problems or even to improve general health as a direct goal, but to work with self-perception through somatic explorations, potentially improving physical functioning in turn. Interestingly, the client?s body is now expediently considered to be adequate for the task at hand; it is awareness that is considered inaccurate or ?less-than-complete? in some way. Sometimes techniques are employed that even temporarily make the body look worse from the point of view of the fixing paradigm; i.e., encouraging a client to embody a caricature of her pattern in order to feel it more completely. Work is not linearly repetitive, and can actively engage the client creatively, mentally, emotionally, and perceptually. Examples include Rolf Movement® Integration, dance therapy, and Feldenkrais Method® somatic education. Manual Rolfing SI work could also be included, and does fall more predominantly into this paradigm toward the end of the Ten Series. Due to its nonlinear, systemwide nature, the exploratory paradigm is strongly correlated with Maitland?s holistic paradigm. However, the functional paradigms are not hierarchically organized, so while Maitland considers his holistic paradigm to be of a higher level than his other two, the exploratory paradigm is not considered to be above the other two functional paradigms ? we Rolfers often flit between them like hummingbirds.

From this brief sketch, I hope that it is apparent that various therapies and even specific interventions will often correspond with more than one functional paradigm, and that the boundaries between the paradigms are rather loose and messy. However, in order to provide the neophyte Rolfer with a working understanding of the approaches available to him/her, it may be of some use to lay these functional paradigms out in such a fashion.

Endnotes

1. Maitland, Jeffrey, ?Rolfing: a Third Paradigm Approach to Body-Structure.? Rolf Lines, April 1992, Volume 20, no. 2, pp. 46-49.