Dr. Ida Rolf Institute

Rolf Lines – (Genérico)

sds

In striving to gain another level of1 conceptual clarity around our understanding of the Rolfing “recipe”, I remembered a distinction used in philosophical ethics and realized it applies to our work.

The distinction is between two kinds of rules: constitutive rules and rules of strategy. Consider any game such as checkers, five-card stud, and the like. The rules that define a game are called the constitutive rules. If one breaks any of these rules, one is simply no longer playing the game. For example, one might decide to move a checker onto the table on which the checker board is resting. There are many four-letter names for such a move, but obviously such a move is a direct violation of the rules of the game and, as such, is not part of the game of checkers.

Of constitutive rules, one can say “always” and/or “never” do this or that.

Strategy rules function quite differently. They are rules of thumb and, therefore, cannot be part of what defines the game. Strategy rules are generalities about the best way to play the game. They say, “If you find your self in this or that situation, generally the best move is….” The violation of any or all strategy rules does not add up to no-longer-playing-the- game-at-hand. The violation of strategy rules may be due to great creativity and intelligence or simple stupidity. In either case, one is still playing the same game and is not in violation of the rules that define it.

“Always” and “never” cannot and do not apply to strategy rules.

The distinction between two kinds of rules applies to Rolfing and to our concept of the “recipe”. Much confusion exists in our way of talking about the “recipe”. Some people argue that the great variety of individual client-differences demands a flexibility and creativity not permitted by the “recipe”. Others fearfully respond that this sort of thinking leads to throwing away the “recipe” and hence to destroying Rolfing. Depending on how the “recipe” is conceptualized, both camps are right; and both are wrong.

One way of viewing the “recipe” is to understand it as a set of constitutive rules. These are the rules(or principles of order) that define the very nature of Rolfing itself. Breaking any one of these rules is tantamount to not playing the game of Rolfing anymore, i.e. to not Rolfing.

The other way of understanding the “recipe” is to see it as a collection of strategy rules. Strategy rules are generalities that are applicable much of the time; they represent the collective wisdom of our community. They are guidelines, rules-of-thumb, for achieving the goals of Rolfing as defined by the constitutive rules. Some strategy rules are more important than others, and it is not a good idea to break them, unless one has lots of experience and a very good reason. Other strategy rules are much less critical, and breaking them will not create horrible, unwanted results. Strategy rules, for example say, “When you see this kind of rotation, shortness, bunching, etc., try this or that move” or “Clean off this before you work on that” and so on. Breaking any or all strategy rules might bean indication of wonderful, creative, brilliant Rolfing or it could be an example of truly awful, stupid Rolfing. Either way, good or bad, it is still Rolfing.

Contrary to one of the prevailing myths in our community, I find a great deal of consensus about what Rolfing is, i.e. about the constitutive rules or principles of Rolfing. Whether I talk to Rolfers, Movement Teachers or Rolfing instructors, I sense agreement about these constitutive rules. And I have heard a number of people state these rules many times. However, although these rules have been stated many times, they have not been stated clearly; and they have not been clearly distinguished from many of our most cherished strategy rules. This lack of clarity is why many of our discussions bog down.

Many times strategy rules are stated as constitutive rules with “always” and “never” tagged on for emphasis. Without the distinction between these two kinds of rules, one naturally assumes that if Dr. Rolf or are spected teacher said, “Always do this and never do that!” that the violation of such a rule is heresy. However, many times such statements are really strategy rules masquerading as constitutive rules.

I am not pointing a finger at anyone nor finding fault. I am only wish to draw a much needed distinction and show how not having this distinction has caused us much unnecessary grief. Strategy rules tend to get stated and taught as constitutive formulas.

Because we have not always been clear about what we are doing when we Rolf, because we am still in the process of deepening our understanding of this work, we also tend to teach strategy rules pretending-to-be-constitutive-rules as rituals never to be violated. Ritualized learning creates the very opposite of what we all want. An emotional investment in a ritual prevents us from appropriately seeing, feeling, understanding, and discussing what we are doing when we do what we all love the most, Rolfing. When we should be overjoyed at a new development in the work, we instead often feel confused, upset and perhaps fearful that somebody will cry, “Heresy!”

Notice, by the way, how the debate about changing the Standards of Practice to permit advanced Rolfers to work outside the ten session format confuses the two kinds of rules. And notice that confusion exists on both sides of the issue. Do we really want to say that ten sessions is a constitutive rule? Isn’t it the case that ten sessions is one of our most important strategy rules that we don’t violate unless we have good reason? And isn’t it the case that the ten-session format, as we teach it, contains the constitutive rules of Rolfing (as well as strategy rules) and that we learn what these rules are (i.e. what Rolfing is and how to do it) through practicing the ten session format?

I am not stating truths and no roffering arguments on this particular topic; rather I am asking rhetorical questions. The distinction between two kinds of rules, I believe, focuses the debate so we can begin discussion about these important matters. How one is tempted to answer these questions displays where the real dispute is. The real issue is not whether Rolfing a child in three twenty minute sessions is Rolfing or not or whether it is a violation of the Rolfing principles. The real issue concerns what the constitutive rules of Rolfing are and how to draw the line between constitutive and strategy rules. And as I say, I person-ally believe we are much closer to agreement about what the constitutive rules of Rolfing are the most of us realize.

Thus, the next important step is to state the constitutive rules of Rolfing clearly and in such a way that it embraces all of what we do in basic and advanced Rolfing as well as Rolfing Movement work. Because of considerations of space and time, I will not detail all the constitutive principles of Rolfing here. Instead, let me give just a few examples and permit me one more distinction.

One of the easier places in the ten-series to see the distinction between the two kinds of rules is in the third session. Every constitutive rules is a statement of one or more of the essential principles of what constitutes order in the human body in relation to gravity. The constitutive rules or principle of integration of the third session stated as a goal is, “Establish the lateral line (or third session line or coronal plane, etc.).” Much can be said about the nature of this line: how it functions with respect to the Line (or core), how it’s actually a plane more than a line, how it fits within the priority of events that must occur in order for the body to achieve balance in
gravity and so on. Questions about the ontological status of the third session line, how it exists and what sort of a “thing” it is, are also important. But it is not necessary for this discussion that we deal with them now. The truth is that we all know what the third session line looks like when a body has one and when a body doesn’t. To under-stand how this lines is established, one must understand the importance of certain anatomical structures, such as the twelfth rib and the quadratus lumborum. Yet, notice, unless one already understands what the third-session line is, the instructions to free the twelfth rib and quadratus are next to meaningless. A deep tissue therapist, without the eyes and understanding of a Rolfer, instructed to free the quadratus and the twelfth rib probably would not produce much order. The third-session line, therefore, is one of the constitutive principles of Rolfing. To state it crudely, “If you are not interested in establishing the third-session line, you are not interested in Rolfing. Because if you don’t establish the third-session line you are not going to be able to create a Rolfed (or balanced or integrated) body.

How one goes about establishing the third-session line is all about strategy. Consider, for example, Jan Sultan’s internal/external typology. Internals and externals both in appropriately distribute their weight in gravity through characteristic lines of transmissions in the tissue. How one establishes order (or the third-session line) in the pure internally rotated or pure externally rotated or in the varied and mixed types will look quite different depending upon what body structure one is Rolfing. The internal/external/mixed typology doesn’t say what one must always do or never do. Rather, it presents many strategies for understanding what one is seeing and for dealing with it, i.e. for Rolfing it. Since we are about creating order, all of the strategies are articulated and couched within the constitutive principles for each of the ten sessions.

The same is true for Emmett Hutchins’ two-way operator which gives us a way to understand what we are seeing and how to strategize each session in order to create the level of order stated in the constitutive principles. The use we make of the two-way operator as Rolfers is guided by the constitutive principles of Rolfing. A deep tissue therapist who employes the two-way operator without our constitutive principles would not produce what we do in a body. By the way, the internal/external typology and the two-way operator fit together like handing love and each in many ways makes the same point in two some what different languages but that is a subject for another paper.

The third-session line is a line of transmission, and establishing it creates an important level of order in a body. It is not the first or the last or the most important principle of Rolfing, but it is a constitutive principle. To cease creating the third-session line is to cease doing Rolfing. One is not just doing bad Rolfing if one doesn’t attempt to create this line. One is simply not Rolfing.

To distinguish between the lines that create order and the lines of transmission that result from the imbalanced distribution of weight in gravity, I call the third-session line and the other lines of Rolfing (e.g. the fourth-session line or the sixth-session line) lines of syntropy or syntropi clines. Syntropy is the opposite of entropy and applies to living systems only. If you don’t like the phrase “lines of syntropy”, call them the” lines of integration” or “IPR lines”. In any case, a Rolfed body is one in which lines of transmission have been transformed into the lines of syntropy, the lines through which the body appropriately distributes its weight into gravity.

The first session is unique in that in that it does not try to create any particular lines of syntropy. Rather the constitutive rule of the first session contains a syntropic principle that says, “In order to create the lines of syntropy in the later sessions, one must first open and prepare the field for what is to come.” The statement, “The goal of the first session is to lengthen the front of the body” is the statement of a strategy rule, not of a constitutive principle. After all, with some structures, lengthening the front of the body would take them further off their line and not assist them in normalizing their breathing. So the first session is about opening the surface myo fasciae of the body in order to appropriately prepare it to be able to receive the integration that only Rolfing can create. And this is accomplished by: 1) normalizing breathing, and 2) balancing the pelvis over the legs. All the rest is strategy.

Hopefully, I’ve made these points and distinctions well enough to open the way for discussing one of our most important questions: “What is Rolfing?” I would be surprised indeed, if we could not arrive at consensus on the constitutive, syntropic principles of Rolfing. Another important discussion we should also be having concerns our strategy rules. For example, what are our most important strategy rules, i.e. the ones we should think twice about breaking and what the least important ones? How would it look if we tried to prioritize these rules? And are there strategies that have no place with in the practice of Rolfing (e.g. high velocity osseous manipulations, Jin Shin, aura balancing, etc., etc.)?

There is obviously much more to all this than I can state in this context. But before closing this article, I will make one more comment. The syntropic constitutive principles of Rolfing all add up to create what we call the LINE. The LINE is our most important constitutive syntropic principle. The attempt to establish any one line of syntropy is already the attempt to establish all of them and hence the attempt to establish the LINE itself. The reason we want to create the LINE is because we recognize that this science and art we call Rolfing is embedded in a philosophical view of what constitutes a more evolved human being. The same is true of all arts and sciences. They are based on a set of values that flow from a philosophical position. We have a philosophical position and; unlike many philosophical positions in Western culture, we are trying to live it.

I hope what I have attempted here is useful to all of us and that it helps open dialog about one of our most important philosophical, pedagogical, and legal questions, “What is Rolfing?”

I would like to stress the word “dialog” here. A dialog is not a debate. In a debate there is only one winner. In a dialog, all participants win. A dialog often requires a critical, intensive and vigorous examination of presuppositions and deeply held beliefs. Yet such an examination must always take place in an arena of openness and mutual respect. In a dialog we all come away with a deeper and richer understanding of what we all cherish and with a commitment to further dialog. In a community that values the evolution of the human spirit as well as the art and sciences that are grounded in and arise from authentic experience, not to dialog is to wither and die.

Adv. Rolfer Jeff Maitland is a Rolfing Instructor who serves as Chairman of the Institute’s faculty committee.Rolfing by the Rules

To have full access to the content of this article you need to be registered on the site. Sign up or Register. 

Log In