Motility or Mobility?

Much of the Rolf Forum cyberspace was devoted to the subject of Motility vs. Mobility: What do they mean for us as Rolfers, whether the consensual dictionary and medical definitions have value for us, and how are we to differentiate the two terms in practice? The following are excerpts of this discussion that may help us eventually define these words in a useful manner.
Author
Translator
Pages: 5-8
Year: 1999
Dr. Ida Rolf Institute

Rolf Lines – SUMMER 1999 – Vol 27 – Nº 03

Volume: 27
Much of the Rolf Forum cyberspace was devoted to the subject of Motility vs. Mobility: What do they mean for us as Rolfers, whether the consensual dictionary and medical definitions have value for us, and how are we to differentiate the two terms in practice? The following are excerpts of this discussion that may help us eventually define these words in a useful manner.

Bill Smythe: The following distinctions from osteopathy might be helpful: Biokinetic Motility: Outside pressure toward inside. This is based on embryological development where in the first two months there is an outside fluid pressure acting on the membrane system which is epigenetic, i.e., acting outside of genetics.

Biodynamic Motility: inside pressure toward outside. This is based on genetics in that it is the movement of the action potential within the cell’s DNA to the outside. It is this type of motility that is used to describe the movement originating from the core and also, perhaps most interesting, it is the “me,” the feeling of myself, that takes place all the time.

Osteopaths discuss this quality as Inherent Tissue Motion (ITM) and imply a relationship between practitioner and client. Am I feeling, sensing their motility or my own? This seems to be one of the challenges in all somatic therapies.

The medical dictionaries I have consulted have similar definitions of motility, i.e.: “having-the power of spontaneous movement.”

What is spontaneous movement? My Webster 2nd Edition defines spontaneous as: “acting by its own impulse, energy or natural law, without external cause or influence; as, spontaneous motion; spontaneous growth; spontaneous combustion.”

What aspects of the human organism have the power of spontaneous movement? Classically, medical literature refers to the motility of the gastrointestinal tract; Jean-Pierre Barral’s perspective is that all viscera and organs have motility. We could refer to the craniosacral motion as motility in that it is acting without external cause; cells and tissues have their own motility. In essence, the whole human organism is like an “ocean” with its array of living creatures seeking their own impulse or life expression.

Dr. Peter Levine and I creatively defined motility as “floatility,” as a way of giving expression to what many of our students said was their felt sense. We then added that motility is the “mother of mobility,” i precedes mobility (the conscious or willful act) by giving impulse and aliveness to mobility. Peter now states: “Motility is the basic form of movement underlying all other movement.” Other terms my clients use to describe this experience are bouyancy, lightness, floaty, spirited, energetic, fluid, expanded and joyous.

An essential component of tracking, observing or palpating motility in a client is that the practitioner must be aware of his/her own motility. This in no way implies that one should be narcissistic in the treatment and care of others, but rather one needs to find ‘ a willingness to be with one’s own comfort/discomfort while the client is experiencing their own inner processes.

The need for clear boundaries is another essential component in contacting the world of motility. My preferred definition of boundary is “equal meeting,” i.e., where do I end and the other begin? One wants to meet the client where the client is, NOT where you think they should be. This working relationship is often described by my clients as one of mutuality or cooperativeness. Technically speaking, indirect approaches to manipulation can be this equal meeting and often times contact and restore the client’s motility. In closing I would like to say that, for me, there is a great distinction between talking about motility and actually sensing and observing motility in the clinical situation.

Darrell Sanchez: I thought some definitions might be useful. The 1’s are from Webster’s Collegiate 10th ed., and the 2’s are from Taber’s 15th ed.:

1. Mobility: of or relating to a mobile, i.e., capable of moving or being moved.

2. Mobility: state or quality of being (movable); facility of movement.

1. Motile (motility) adj.: exhibiting or capable of movement.

2. Motility: power to move spontaneously.

The first three definitions equate both terms with movement, so we are left to define any differences for ourselves. “Inherent motion” has been used to define motility, but motion is also equated to movement in these two sources and movement is described as a change of place, position or posture. Seeing motility in this light feels uncomfortable to me in that it begins to give movement a finite quality.

I like to think of motility as nonfinite, with finite movement indicating a beginning, middle and end, and non-finite making these distinctions imperceptible. I usually associate motility with the fluids and viscera of our bodies. Their movements do not seem to have a beginning, middle or end, with one movement proceeding into the next. Movement experiences are more like fields of motion within which are currents, rhythms, pulses, waves, etc. A single wave, or pulse, of repetition of a rhythm can be seen as a finite movement. But seen in the context of the movement it emerged from and the one it turns into, it begins to have a non-finite experience.

Finite movements are constantly born out of and reconnect with the nonfinite movements. At times I wonder if we even need to make a distinction between motility and mobility. Nonetheless, it might be helpful to think of mobility as finite and motility as non-finite.

Motility does not have to be related only to small, cellular movements, but can also include the jet stream in the atmosphere and the movement of interstellar dust clouds. Mobility does not have to be limited to large joint movements. It can also include the opening and closing of biochemical gateways in the cell membrane or the valves of the heart. Where the end of one movement in mobility is imperceptible from the beginning of the next, then sequences of movements begin to take on a non-finite quality. The finite movements, such as those mentioned above, channel the expressions of the non-finite. This is how I see mobility and motility relating.

With the characteristic of spontaneity, motility is deeply related to nature herself and deeply related to our own body-beings. When we use that power or allow that power in us, we attune to nature and we become fluid and creative. We attune to motility, inherent, non-finite movement.

Motility, viewed from “the power to be spontaneous,” is not limited to large or small, body or mind, finite or non-finite. Elephants can be spontaneous. So can my thoughts and feelings. And I could never predict which way the bird will cock its head.

We can make a distinction between the two terms for artistic or educational purposes. The reason I might make the distinctions I described is simply to aid myself and my clients in bringing the finite closer to the infinite. Again, they are all ways of describing the larger idea of experiencing the joy and wonder of movement. What seems more important to me in regards to movement in our work is to ask the questions: What is it that I have my hands or eyes on?; What movement is it capable of?; How am I to be in service of that movement?

Greg Knight: Another important aspect of motility, as I understand it, is that in order to experience and utilize it in a therapeutic context, both the therapist and client need to be willing to enter into a particular state of awareness, a state of allowing. As Peter Levine says in one of his articles, the greatest opportunity for healing occurs when the sensations that signify a motile response are just experienced, without being interpreted or controlled. When we try to understand or “shape” our experience of these sensations with our will, or you might say with our more conscious, cortical brain, we exert a kind of control over the motile responses of our body and prevent them from moving freely.

When I use the presence of mind that says, “allow, welcome, listen, follow” I am making an act of faith that my body and my client’s body have an inherent sense of where it needs to go and what it needs to do to resolve its restrictions or trauma and integrate at a higher level. A state of willing permission is essential for using motility. As Rolfers, we often pay lip service to getting softer in our approach, but this step of consciously bringing motility into our system of teaching really signifies a major change.

Steve Collins: I made the terms work for me in a way that made sense: motility describes the space, the area in which movement can occur (spontaneously or otherwise); and mobility describes the actual movement.

Mobility is then a measurement of the density of the space or the vibration of the space (i.e., a joint, organ). So rather than having different kinds of motility, we end up with different degrees of motility. The degree of motility of the space then determines the mobility of the space, or what movements will flow through (regardless of size). While I agree that motility precedes mobility, my observations suggest that motility is directly affected by mobility.

Jan Sultan: The idea that motility precedes mobility precedes position, represents an order of priority to the organism physio functionally. In fact, the temporal priorities may occur in the reverse order in the development of tactics for an individual in process.

Russell Stolzoff: What do you mean by “order of priority?” Do you mean to say that position could precede mobility precede motility?

Jan Sultan: The sequence of “motility precedes mobility precedes position” is a LOGICAL priority. This means that there is a hierarchy here that follows observation of the biological pheonomenon. Local (cellular activity, fluid and energetic transport) metabolic competence will support the ability of a part or a whole to move through a range of motion. That ROM will in turn support and limit the possibility and type of spatial order available.

The TEMPORAL priority in a practical sense may involve establishing mobility in a region first to allow the motility to assert itself, or even beginning with position (spatial order) may allow motility to be established and then mobility expressed. The difference then between logical and temporal priority is that logical is sequential and physiologic while temporal is practical – “How do we get there from here?”

For my part I consider the D.O.’s as the grandaddies of Western physical medicine and use their work as a beginning for my deliberations on matters like this. Still, I want to emphasize that they are not the end point of the inquiry. We must examine our own premises and the possible explanations and come to terms … literally!

Greg Knight: I attended a Visceral Manipulation workshop through Upledger taught by Jay Kain. Jay has spent considerable time with J-P Barral and Frank Lowen. He commented at one point that sometimes in order to restore normal motility in an organ, you had to work with its mobility mobilize its ligamentous restrictions that were compromising the organ. He had us assess the motility of the cecum, perform some mobilizations, then reheck the motility for improvements. This is not to say that we couldn’t treat the organ’s inherent motility, but that its ability to go through inspire and expire was greatly effected by restrictions in its mobility relative to other structures.

One could argue that the mobilization techniques themselves relied on motility. Jay described induction as a “direct indirect” technique; not the most elegant description, but the point with this technique is that you continue to take up the slack in the restricted tissue (direct) until the tissue starts to soften at which point you follow (indirect). The technique’s success depends on your ability to follow the tissues’ inherent responses to your mobilizing them, which sounds a lot like using motility.

Another interesting comment Jay made was that problems with the diaphragm, psoas, piriformis and maybe hamstrings were almost always secondary compensations to more primary restrictions.

I like the maxim that “mobility precedes position and motility precedes mobility.” When applied, it makes our work more dynamic and more respectful of our client’s capacity to release restrictions and find greater order.

Allan Kaplan: While I was reviewing Barral’s “Visceral Manipulation” books last night, I came across a paragraph that nagged at me. My eyebrow raise comes from the “motility precedes mobility” part, attributed to Barral. What I found was this: “Generally it is best if induction, the treatment of motility problems, is preceded by elimination of larger restrictions of mobility. It is difficult to release musculoskeletal restrictions using induction, and they can significantly impair motility.” (JP. Barral, “Visceral Manipulation”, p.24). In other words, mobility precedes motility! This makes sense to me and echoes Rolfing axioms like “appendicular precedes axial,” “surface before deep,” “sleeve before core,” “clear primary restrictions before addressing rotations,” etc.

Barral continues: “The exception to this rule of treatment occurs when the vitality of the viscera is extremely weak, in which case techniques to improve motility should precede mobility. This is because without a modicum of motility, efforts to improve moblity will have little or no effect.” (ibid.)

I respectfully posit the following suggestions for the revised maxim: “Motility precedes mobility, which precedes motility.” “Mobility precedes motility, except when motility comes first.” Or how about, “If at first you don’t precede, try, try, again.”

Robert Schleip: It seems to me that several of us have started to use the terms ‘motility’ and ‘mobility’ in a specific and unusual way: “Motility” connotes very small movements within the body, whereas “mobility” becomes the comparatively bigger movements. These definitions began a few years ago with some French osteopaths and gained some popularity among several members of our school since then.

Outside of this small field (of mostly a few osteopaths and Rolfers) the terms seem to be used in quite a different way: “Mobility” meaning the ability to be passively moved by outside forces (i.e., as in range of motion testing of a joint) and “motility” the amount of active movement. This is independent of the size of a movement. Examples for the use of “motility” in world-wide academic use are “peristaltic motility” or the motility of a sperm or frog. This is also the way these words are distinguished by most dictionaries as far as I can tell.

Even with the word “spontaneous” defining motility, it says nothing about the size of the movement. If I move my arm to my nose in order to scratch myself spontaneously, this movement could be seen as motility. That’s at least how most academics and dictionaries are using this term.

The disadvantage of limiting motility to a certain size is that this seems to neglect that in the world of movement all kinds of sizes exist along a continuous spectrum. For example, in the Continuum work one can learn minutely small and invisible movements in specific joints, as well as within the tonus play of a muscle part, directed either with pure voluntary control or fully autonomous, or any mixture in between. It is also known in anatomy that in “resting tonus” individual motor units are constantly taking turns with short rests while their neighbors are taking over their load. Most people can learn within 15 minutes via biofeedback to control any individual motor unit (of which we have 2 -3 million). Now, which ones of those movements would qualify to be called motility? Where should we draw the line?

I suggest that it is sufficient to talk about “Micro Motility” or “Micro Motions” if one wants to emphasize the beauty of small and refined movements and still follow the general academic terminology. The difference between motility and mobility has nothing to do with size or with voluntary/involuntary control, but simply with whether the moving force comes from outside or from within the moving element. If we continue to follow J-P Barral and establish our own sub cultural language here, we are mainly creating an unnecessary isolation of our school from general academia.

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

Log In