Every conscientious therapist of whatever persuasion at some point asks: how far can I trust my own perceptions? The answer is vital though hardly simple. All therapists be they psychoanalysts or rolfers, are its a powerful position vis-a-vis their clients a position that can easily be abused even with the best of intentions. This paper points to sonic of the stumbling blocks to clarity of perception. I will also suggest some ways of approaching clarity, as applied to the special situation of the somatic practitioner.

Somatic therapy is a term I and others are using to describe work with the mind/body unity primarily through the medium of the body such as Feldenkrais, Alexander, Rolf or Reichian therapies. Because somatics is a relatively new approach, practitioners have been mostly concerned with the development of techniques and may be reluctant to recognize that they are involved in therapeutic relationships. The first step is to acknowledge that the therapeutic relationship is a reality its this work. Then we must ask, what kind of therapeutic relationship is appropriate? Or as I lay me hands on my clients, how can I guard against laying my trip on them as well?

It’s easy to see, given a “helper” and, hots the therapist’s version of realilv tan he subtly imposed upon the client, as in this quotation from au article on Rolfing in tho August, 1979 issue of Runners world:

David probed my tense muscles with his fingers, hands and knuckles…. “make like an animal” he said. “Grant, scream, groam. Show we whats inside you”

Or this from The Body Reveals by Kurtz and Prestera:

R: Threes a little longing in theer. (chest)

H: Theres a little caring in of the breastbone Feels like it has to do with this kind of fear and kind of collapsing in here (folding forward of the body) of…

R: …of suffering.

H: Suffering. Right! Suffering.

Psychotherapists with their advantage of experience, have already giving a great deal of thought to this problem. Although we cannot fully examine their contributions here, we cat look briefly at some which tie relevant to somatic work. Their approaches range from early warning detectors to complete reconstructions of methodology.

The psychoanalytic concept of counter transference is a good example of early warning detector that cot be applied to somatic work. The Freudians saw that the analyst, as well is the patient, could become involved in projection, and realized this had to he dealt with in their own analysis and in their relationships with their patients. Touching oilier people’s bodies is also an emotionally talk loaded act for both parties and it can trigger many projections on both sidles of the table, as well as the couch.

An example of a methodological reconstruction relevant to somatics would be those forms of client centered therapy (stemming from Rogers’ work) in which the therapist deliberately restricts his or her interpretative function and works to train the client to assume that responsibility. A parallel approach in somatics is the work of the Gindler teachers like Charlotte Selver and Carola Speads.

As with any form of therapy there are certain characteristic sources of conclusion for somatic therapists. One is the expertise of the practitioner. Body therapists do have special ways of seeing and touching which can stem very mysterious. The practitioner can easily be put info the role of the ”expert’ who has all tilt answers. “Tell me what is wrong with my body and then fix it” can result in a “no win” situation for both parties it encourages the client to abdicate all knowledge of, and all responsibility for, his or her own body.

Both therapists can also err if they dont recognise that noverbal behavior can convey subtle relationship messages. In the excerpt front the rolling article quoted above the client experiences the rolfers hands as “probing.” Perhaps this is appropriate but perhaps it is causing unnecessary tissue resistance that the therapist could reduce by changing his touch. The will never he in a position to do so, however, it he sees the client’s “resistance” or “tension” as the only element in the situation.

It’s not enough however to point out some oft lie more common pitfalls. The basic problem is in our approach to perception. We must therefore take a look at some of our assumptions about how seeing, hearing, feeling, etc. happen.

For the pre-scientific mentality, tile concept of “perception dons not exist because perception implies a universal split into one who perceives and something else that is perceived. But the naïve viewer’s experience was of the underlying units of filings. The pre-scientific therapist, or shaman derived his intutitions from this felt unity, and did not attempt to analyze then). Our premises a into the nature of perception however, were shaped by nineteenth century science and philosophy, and are quite different. The prevailing notion at that little was that the human viewer could he likened to a camera, taking a picture of an objective reality “out there.” Presumably all impartial observers pictures would look ;alike, and personal bias was thought to be a fly in the ointment (or a smudge on the lens!) of good methodology something that was possible to eliminate.

This assumption was useful to make during the earlier Stages of scientific inquiry where the prototypical situation was the test tube experiment. In this situation it was appropriate to deliberately restrict the field of investigation to data that were easily controlled, replicated and quanitified. For the first time, a clear distinction was made not only between perceiver and perceived, but also between observation and interpretation. This abolished forever the naive view that one simply saw what was. But though the scientific observer realized his interpretations were open to question he still assumed his perceptions were reflections of the real.

Although the advantages of scientific advancement are obvious there are disadvantages that go along with this paradigm shift. When the world becomes divided into (passive) objects and (active) observers, the sense of underlying unity of things is lost.

In the context of therapy we can see both the positive and negative aspects of the situation. The shaman who operated nut of a world view which automaticallv united hint wish the sufferer is replaced by his modern prototype, the doctor as clinical scientist. He lacks the shaman’s access to a holing world view but has instead all there sources of modern medicine at his command as he dispassionately observes his patient and arrives at a differential diagnosis. The client has stepped inside of the test tube.

Once we have made the shift to looking at the lens as well as the picture, we have conic full circle back to the sense of the underlying unity of all things, although we return with more sophisticated sense of the nature of this unity. As John Michell, writing in CoEvolution Quarterly, says, “the universe is so generous that it gives to anyone, crank, scientist, or religions believer the evidence which confirms his particular belief or theory… it will respond to desires planted in it and reflect back images projected onto it. This implies that we are all, individually and collectively, responsible for the world as it really is, which is how the experience it.”

Unfortunately, the traditions we inherit through psychiatry and psychology betray their affection for the so called “medical model.” which is a cultural laggard, still not fully divorced front nineteenth century science. One can think of nothing more passive than the patient “patient;” the word it self conjures up Visions of a supremely helpless individual, submitting hint sell to endless diagnostic procedures. In somatic work the person is all ton often put svmbolically “in vitro” by having him Stand still, so that his bode can be looked at compared to all ideal “model treasured, etc. Since no one stands this way except under duress or the influence of terror, the information gained must be balanced against the information lost. Or the client will he asked to perform certain “stress exercises” which are considered diagnostic or will be evaluated to see which category of the therapist’s schema lie belongs in. Although sensitive practitioners make effort not to be dogmatic, there is still the systematic problem of a thought firm which tends to imply objectivity, when it is really imposing its own highly selective reality upon the client.

Paradoxically, it’s only by acknowledging subjectivity that try can begin m approach clarity. Otherwise, we are trapped in the seemingly objective, or objectivistic. When this happens, our goals can take precedence over the goals of the client, who generally only wants to fell better until we educate him or her that feeling better ”means” having the top of the head tip, or a straight spine, or the ability to make “err contact.” or “orgastic potency? and so on. Once therapy becomes doctrinaire education there is no way for the therapist to reliably get feedback front the client. The authenticity of the process is then in jeopardy.

If we are to discard methods which are reductive and objectivistic, or at least supplement them with others, we still need to develop a high level of receptivity and tolerance for ambiguity. The painter Paul klee has said.” In a forest I have felt many times that it was not I who looked at the forest. Some days I felt the trees were looking at me, speaking to me…. I was there listening …. I think the painter (substitute therapist ) must he penetrated by the universe and not want to penetrate it.”

We must restore this sense of unity that was fractured by the scientific world view by developing methodologies which acknowledge that the “truth” in therapy can only be a shared perspective created reciprocally by client and therapist.

Each of our client’s bodies tells the story of his or her uniqueness, and the must first he people who arc interested in listening to these stories. This is not as difficult as it may seem. It may take an unusual degree of empathy to listen to a tree, but we all share with our clients the experience of being a body. If we stay longer with this level of empathic knowing based on sensory input, we are likely to hear the unique story this hock is trying to tell. It is precisely this common sensory substratum of knowledge that allows us to sense a person’s mood which may belie his or her words or to experience in a particular’ breath pattern of posture the essential aspects of someone’s being.

We must also look at our lenses-our interests, our skills, our reactions. The questions. How can rrry hand find a comfortable relation to this body? How can this person and I find a shared reality together which will move her toward her goals? These questions are very different from, What is wrong with this body?

Another hallmark of clarity is the sense an ever expanding perspective which keeps the therapeutic process alive and fresh. Asking for feedback, using videotape, and in case of impasse getting a third viewpoint are all processes which enhance clarity. Another alternative to using only external norms is to think in terms of internal congruence. What is keeping Mary from being the most Mary she can be? How does the tone of Jack’s arm muscles get in the way of his desire to dance: How does the backward movement of Jan’s upper chest frustrate her desire to move forward in space? How does the stillness in Harry’s body scent at adds with the flexibility of his mind?

Body therapists have an additional advantage in that they are clearly “doing something” for which they can be held responsible and cannot he misperceived as merely neutral observers. They are involved in interaction: l systems with their clients on the most physical level. They can sense in their hands how alterations in their moods and touch instantly affect the response of the client. They are literally ”in touch” with what is going on particularly if their methods are sensitive to the responses of the client’s body.

Whenever a new client walks into the room we embark on a joint venture of meaning making. We must develop methods which heighten our powers of empathic observation, receptivity and tolerance for ambiguity. If we rely instead oil objectivistic methods, we are too easily napped in our own perspectives, which limit out Freshness and creativity as well as our clarity.