Dr. Ida Rolf Institute

Rolf Lines – WINTER/FEBRUARY 1997 – Vol. 25 – Nº 1

Volume: 25

I was sent a pre-publication copy of Hubert Ritters interview with Hans Flury because the staff felt that the faculty should have an opportunity to respond. In the interview Flury expresses himself on a wide array of issues including his own contributions to Rolfing in the name of Normal Function and the politics of the Rolf Institute. His bitter pessimism about the work itself, the quality of the people involved in teaching, and the future of the organization flavor the interview to the extent that it demands a rational response, and some setting the record straight.

Over the years, there were several direct invitations made by the faculty to have Hans come to faculty meetings and present about his ideas. This goes all the way back to the (antediluvian) time before the split with the Guild. Rather than come himself, Hans chose to send ambassadors in the name of Wolf Wagner and Willie Harder to represent his ideas. The faculty never has ignored the concept of Normal Function. Rather, we have struggled to understand both the presentations of Wolf and Willie and the series of articles that came out in the Notes on Structural Integration. Hans’ theory of Normal Function starts with limiting the inquiry in order to focus on certain aspects of the work. He chooses to start with a specific definition of structure as the geometry of the facial net in relation to gravity, the Newtonian physics of that relationship, and the possibility that the body can function better in terms of economy. He intentionally ignores those aspects of the work that have to do with evolution, behavior, self image, psycho-motor responses, and with the quality of the experience of the person receiving the work. Hans’ view of results are limited to those that can be quantified as the body consuming less thermal energy (expressed as heat units) in function.

Although Flury is adamant about all other results than functional economy being “fluff” and irrelevant to “structural integration,” he has not subjected his own ideas to the same critical thinking that he applies to the rest of our work. It is pure hypothesis, without any experimental data to back it up, to say that his approach creates “a body” that consumes less thermal energy in function. While it may be ultimately true, the hypothesis masquerades as scientific fact because it is cloaked in the language of physics and in narrow definitions of human bodily being.

When Ritter asks Flury about the relationship of his ideas to the Internal External model, Hans is too casual (to suit me) about the impact of my thinking on his work. I have my original notes from the class Hans took from me where he first heard about the I-Emodel. I said then that the orientation of the femur was the superficial indicator for a quick read on the bias of a body to be characteristically Internal or External. I made the distinction between the bony femur and the lay of the soft tissues. I said then that the structure of the pelvis was a more sophisticated indicator and that it was harder to read and evaluate. I made the distinction between tilt and shift as postural dynamics, as opposed to the intra segmental structural strains of torsion and sacro iliac shear. I spoke of the difference between process orientation in response to perception of the client’s’ structure, as differentiated from formulistic approaches. With regard to the cranio sacral rhythm, I pointed out that structural characteristics of form and underlying physiologic function were co functional. There was much more, but the point here is that I actually don’t mind that Hans is standing on my shoulders to build his theory. I do mind that he does not bother to acknowledge the extent to which his ideas rest on the inspiration of my creative thinking.

Hans complains that there has not been enough written about the work and developments in Rolfing. While the complaint may have some validity, this does not acknowledge Jeff Maitland’s writings on principles and taxonomies. Still, the lack of written word does not make the developments invalid. This work is first and foremost a practical dicipline, and the theory is in process. Hans says he was “outraged” by the article Maitland and I penned on “The Principles of Rolfing,” and was insulted by the digression to explain logical equivalence. He does not bother to comment on, and perhaps does not understand, the fact that the principles and strategy rules are fundamentally about how to proceed once you have decided what it is you want to do. No matter that your theory is Normal Function, you still have to figure out what you do first, next, and how to stop. As a Rolfer, Hans follows the principles even though he does not acknowledge them. Indeed, he may even lapse into intuition from time to time after all is said and done.

The principles state the obvious so that it is not overlooked while you proceed. The Wholistic principle stated that all principles must operate simultaneously for the work to be Rolfing. The Palintonic principle is about geometry … which is about spatial order of form in gravity. The Preparatory (adaptive) principle means that sometimes there is a lot of work done distal to the area where you ultimately hope the shift toward better function will happen to secure an integration of the change. The Support principle means that without developing foundation as you go, changes are not integrated … gravity is implied. The Closure principle means that you have to stop intervention both in a given session and in a series of sessions, and enjoins you to consider that as you begin.

“The faculty never has ignored the concept of Normal Function.
Rather, we have struggled to understand both the presentations
of Wolf and Willie and the series of articles that came out in the Notes on Structural Integration.”

Flury consistently tries to seperate structure and function in his theory, ostensibly to make a clear statement about what is structure, isolated from other aspects of human bodily being. This is not the first time in history that theorists have done this, and the attempts always lead to viewpoints on the body that exclude the human dimension. The current state of medicine is a great example. They are still stuck with the Cartesian idea of the body as a soft machine. Flury (and his student Wolf Wagner) seem determined to take structural integration in that direction, and to hold any view within the Rolfing community contrary to his as irrelevant, inappropriate, and even insipid. It is of great consequence that this is a major departure from the fundamental thinking of Ida Rolf, in that she firmly believed that better structural organization of the body led to better functioning of “the whole man.” Han’s “radical orthodoxy” is both regressive and simplistic, and denys the best of Rolf’s thinking. Ida Rolf was a pioneer in the recognition of the unbreakable unity of body and mind, and today, the very best of the new thinking in biology and the cognitive sciences has firmly moved toward the creation of a unified theory that does not separate mind and body at all, but affirms them as inseperable, co functional, and interdependent.

In our own school Maitland has articulated (in the article entitled “Das Boot”) a taxonomy of the areas that Rolfing impacts, as Structural, Functional, Geometric, and Energetic. We are developing Rolfing along these fronts and have made distinctions in the technology we use to impact change in these areas. With these taxonomies in mind, Flury’s contribution is useful but limited to narrow definitions in the area of function, structure, and geometry.

Flury complains that there has been no change of consequence in Rolfing in the 17 years that he has been around it. He says there was a’ moment when the “fundamentalist-mythology” faction left that he hoped for a more rational approach, but that it never happened. This is sheer ignorance and stubborn bitterness on Flurys part. There has been profound growth and progress made in our work, both in theory and in application of the technique. We have directed our attention to the medium of the body, and to the principles of intervention. We have not denied Rolf, but built a foundation of understanding and a diversity of technical approach that makes Rolfing the sophisticated and specific inquiry and intervention that it is today. The taxonomic distinctions give us a way to include Flury’s contributions, but his narrow definitions deny ours.

On the subject of the relationship of the faculty and the board, Flury berates the teachers for their involvement in the politics of the organization. In the best of worlds, the faculty would be free to develop the curriculum and advance the work. The Board and the administration would be a benevolent and supportive force to implement that and to serve the community of Rolfers through supporting research and public awareness. We have inherited a unique twist on the usual “structure” of a Board and a School. In the rest of the world, the Board would be composed of lay persons who were interested in an inquiry into the work and in the dissemination of it into the world. To the best of my knowledge, nowhere else is a Board comprised primarily of graduates from the school that it governs. Nowhere else is the Board composed of people with little or no experience in running an organization. The Board term is four years, and about the time the member has really begun to function, the term is over. The Board is representative to the extent that some of the members are regionally elected, and some at large. There is no formal orientation, or education process involved in becoming a board member, they just arrive (usually with their own agenda) and find their way. Without input from the faculty, the only channel of information for a Board member is from other Board members or from the current Executive Director. Note that since the split we have had 4 Executive Directors and two complete turnovers of directors.

I must point out here that Scott Smith, who is an expert on Non Profit organizations, was hired as an advisor to the Institute. His advice to us was that the organization absolutely had to have faculty representation on its Board of Directors to survive. It is in this context that the faculty has continued to insist on direct representation on the Board, and to lobby against any prospective Board candidate who specifically states an intention to do away with faculty representation (read Peter Fuchs). The faculty is trying to provide a line of consistancy in an otherwise very fluid system of management which strongly impacts (for better and sometimes for worse) our ability to do the job we are assigned. We are not trying to run the organization, only to provide a ready channel of information to represent faculty concerns to the Board. Flury presents the initial failure of this measure to pass to being voted down by the membership. This is not true, in fact, there were not enough Rolfers voting to get a legal quorum for the issue. When it was put it on the ballot again, it passed handily.

Finally, regarding the faculty as being the “annointed ones.” We got handed a job that is both a great privilige, and a responsibility. The privilige is in the access to a student body, and in the opportunity to teach over duration and to participate in the development of the work. The responsibility is to she pard the school to the extent that it will survive and continue its mission to produce Rollers who are competent and able to make a living at the work. It is sad to me that Flury can state that he does not recommend that a candidate come to the Institute for training. The faculty also dialogs with the board to see that it carries out the parts of the mission which are concerned with public education and membership support, and that it supports the school, which is the bread and butter. Remember that the school provides the majority of the funding (along with dues revenues) that keep the organization afloat. The truth is that we have to stay in business to do any of this, and as the consistent element in an otherwise rather fluid equation, the faculty plays its part in the business. In response to internal and external pressure the faculty has developed the Faculty Review Board, which will evaluate faculty performance and handle complaints about faculty. This committee will have the authority to recommend diciplinary action to the board, up to and including firing of faculty members who do not perform to standard. Included in the definition of standard will be a “produce or perish” clause that defines areas of contribution that must be met.

In closing, I want to thank Hans Flury for his determination in following the line of development that he has taken, and to express my concern over his self imposed feeling of bitterness and isolation, and his resultant perceptual discontinuities.

Jan Sultan

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

Log In