I am writing in reference to what Dr. Silverman calls putting the “center line” in the structure of the Rolf Institute. Up to the present the Rolf Institute has not assumed the responsibility of editing written articles and papers on Rolfing before reprinting them. Nor has the Institute taken the position of authority of printing original material on its own. If we are going to have a clear concise and uniform identity, the Institute must in some way decide to create absolute internal consistency in what we say about who we are. We have allowed journalists, freelance writers and a few Rolfers to define to the public what Rolfing is. This type of inconsistent information dissemination is poor public relations, and thus hinders our cultural effectiveness.

Ida said “in no way do we consider ourselves therapists” yet we have developed no explanation of how we are educators. We call our customers clients instead of students and talk about fixing people and manipulating connective tissue as if the client is undergoing an operation under general anesthesia.

If we are to achieve effective penetration into cultural awareness, we must decide for ourselves if we are to be defined as educators or therapists. Because this very basic issue has not been dealt with, we do not know how to present ourselves to society. Our teaching is being weakened because our identity is not internally coherent.

Our intention is misunderstood because, like it or not, we are doing massage by their misinterpretation. Because we have neglected to define how we are educators as opposed to therapists, we have accepted society’s definition of us and obtained legality through massage laws. Until we get clear about what Ida said about us being educators, we will flounder and our membership will not grow significantly.

We must begin the process of the Rolf Institute by developing an explanation of why Rolfing is an education and not a therapy. If this task is brought to a clear conclusion, it will have a profoundly positive effect upon how we teach Rolfers to relate to their students. If we are educators, it will make much more sense to merge structural education with movement education. Such a union will make Rolfers better educators and make our identity as educators much more difficult to refute. As educators, Rolfees will be termed students, because they are. Anyone wishing to become a Rolfer must begin his training by being Rolfed. In this sense everyone experiencing the basic ten sessions is also taking the first course of instruction in how to do Rolfing. If the Rolfer and Rolfee are both aware of this teacher-student relationship, the number of Rolfees who wish to continue their education at the Institute will immediately increase. When the Rolfee realizes that he is beginning the actual training process of becoming a Rolfer, he will feel less awe for the Rolfer and mystery about becoming a Rolfer. Clients and patients cannot see themselves as therapists as easily as students can see themselves as teachers. This is a basic effect stemming from the nature of the relationship between the participating egos.

As educators we will be very safely outside the jealously guarded professional arenas of power. The very nature of how Western societies allow educators great freedom is to our advantage. Once thus defined we will have greatly enhanced freedom of expression and movement within such societies. If’we are to effectively take the position of educators, we must eliminate material we disseminate to the public which is inconsistent with this identity. The Institute must take on the responsibility of creating official written material which explains why we are educators.

Our nearest parallel organization is E.S.T. They have successfully created the position of being educators and not therapists. This clarity has brought them freedom of movement and structural integration which has allowed them to effectively penetrate the culture. E.S.T. held their first “training” here (Cincinnati Ohio) last month and drew 120 people at $425 each. Their clear identity as educators has made it possible for them to expose themselves fully to the culture without fear of the system’s reaction.

This in sharp contrast to our muddled identity. Debra Kuresmon (currently practicing in Boulder), had to leave here (Cincinnati, Ohio) after being told by the authorities that she could not practice “limited medicine” without a license. Consequently, before I decided to challenge the state on the issue of Rolfing being medical, I kept a low profile. I avoided advertising in and being interviewed by major newspapers and I turned down an interview on television. I had been in Cincinnati two months, done three seminars, sold one hundred Rolfing folders (with literature) through health food stores for a dollar each and advertised by poster and in new age newspapers. The result of these semi-covert operations was one client.

Currently I am taking the position of being an educator. The alignment of the Institute with this position will make my eventual court case more assuredly successful.

Not being clear ourselves about whether we are therapists or educators is in part maintained by the ego trip of wanting to be related to the medical field. At the annual meeting the education committee was addressed about the need to make it clear to students that we are evolutionary in intent and not medical. From the response, I do not know if all members of the committee appreciate the significant difference. During that same education committee question-and- answer period, a Rolfer brought up the idea of teaching the medical profession aspects of our training. At an earlier session of the 1982 annual meeting people exhibited confusion about where we fit when discussing health insurance. I sense an undercurrent in the membership to want the power of the medical profession. If we are true to our trade and maintain an honest non-dependent relationship with our students, we will never have that power over our people that they do. We must be content that our best connection with people will be through the energy of love and not fear propagated dependence. To avoid this trap of the ego, we must firmly establish ourselves as educators. By “firmly establish”, I do not only mean at a legal level, but also in our own individual psychic we must see ourselves as educators.

This will be the difficult part. Rolfers think of themselves as therapists and exhibit some of the self-important behavior which seems to be associated with such an identity. It will take a concerted effort at this point in time to individually change our own self-image. All our printed material will have to be modified to eliminate misleading wording and the educational staff will have to go through an attitude shift.

As educators we will not be subject to restriction by the state because we will be outside the laws which act to reduce free entry into various fields of therapy. As educators our intent will be more parallel to our purpose. The Institute will be more internally united in philosophy and action. Such clarity of intent and internal unity will result in our having a more profound effect upon our culture. Ida said “we are not therapists by any means. We are educators.” It is time we begin to adjust our internal and external identity to this statement.

Enclosed is a paper explaining one way we can conceive of Rolfing as an education. It is only a beginning in the process of establishing a consensus of philosophy within the institute, but we must start. This paper will be my main defense when confronted by the authorities for practicing “limited medicine.”

Also enclosed is a copy of Werner Erhard’s booklet prepared for persons intent upon or interested in his “training”. Contained in this booklet is his technique of presenting his system as non-theraputic but educational. His ideas on this point may be of value to us.

Yours truly

John Hammer