Ida Rolf’s most prominent definition of Rolfing is “The Integration of Human Structures”. It is short and concise but nevertheless manages to describe to a surprising extent what Rolfing is about and what it intends. “Structural Integration” is not a very popular name however. Perhaps one reason is the fact that both terms have been fashionable for some time. Consequently their meaning is now diluted and they have become catchwords with which anyone anytime obscures successfully and impressively the lack of clarity behind what is being talked about. Another obstacle may be a diffuse sense of these terms being “difficult” in some way. They are, and they need the theory behind them to acquire concrete meaning. But they also deserve such attention because it is difficult to imagine that anyone interested in the field should be able to gain a deeper understanding without arriving at a fairly conscious and evolved concept of the terms. It does not seem inappropriate to first go into the semantics a little. This reveals some interesting questions and problems which are relevant. Following it, the terms are examined from the theoretical background the essence of which they symbolize.

“Structure” comes from the Latin verb struo, struere: “to put, join, fit together”(1). Its past particip structum means “to have been put together” and also designates “that which has been put together”. From it the noun structure is formed which denotes the result of the act of “putting together”, something like “the compound object which has been put together”.

The endings -ura and -lo, as in integratio, are used in similar ways to construct nouns from verbs. They are not fundamentally different, but it seems that -urn is more static and used more to denote the state after the action has ceased, the end result or product of the action. -lo seems related more closely to the action or process the verb indicates and often actually designates that. The difference shows where both derivatives exist, as in “position” and “pos(i)ture”, “fraction” and “fracture”, “nation” and “nature”. It at least appears to make sense that the relevant pair of terms in the field is “structure and function” and not “struction and functure”.

The legitimate question arises of “who or what put together” that which we then call “structure”. The question is tricky and leads into deep water epistemologically. It contains a hidden premise in that it presupposes that structure exists as a “real reality” not depending on whether someone observes, recognizes, and describes it. The “constructivist” view would hold in its radical formulation that the observer “makes” the structure. It would state that Ida Rolf invented “structure” rather than merely discovering it. Despite some weaknesses, constructivism possesses some virtues which deserve to be kept in mind. For one, it is sceptical about how well our concepts reflect truth and focuses on the internal consistency of theory. More importantly, it emphasizes the premises and assumptions underlying any theoretical system. It challenges them permanently and so forces one to reexamine them periodically. It so helps to avoid popular fallacies and serves to counteract all too evident tendencies of a missionary nature.

Ida Rolf was very much a “realist” of course. Her answer could have been that it was the sum of the mechanical influences on the body occurring through its existence which “put it together” to attain its present form. She saw the dynamics of course which put this degenerative influence into a concflict with the innate tendency of the body to realize its “design” by growing and differentiating. From this large perspective, her achievement was to discover that the main mechanical influence, gravity, could be turned around from compressing the body only to forming a guiding principle along which structure could evolve, and be evolved, in a positive sense.

“Integration” contains the root tag- or teg-, “touch”. From it derives the verb tango, tangere, “to touch”. The negation of its past particip tactum, “touched”, renders intactum, “not touched”. Since “to touch” came into the English language via Old French touchier, and because in- and Zen- derive from the same Indoeuropean form of negation, “intact” and “untouched” not only mean the same but are probably identical as to roots and word formation.

The direct negation of the root produces in-teg-er, also meaning “untouched”, the absence of touch. From this “integrity”, the state or property of being “untouched”, is formed as well as the verb integrate, “to render untouched (again)”. From the past particip integratum the noun integratio is produced in the normal way. It means “the process of rendering untouched (again)” or “the (re)creating of the state of being untouched”. It is also sometimes used to denote that state, equivalent to “integrity” or a hypothetical “integrature”.

In its literal meaning “integration” refers to a powerful myth of mankind of which that of the “Golden Age” or the “Happy Childhood” are examples. The mental image is that of the world – or in our case structure – once having been perfect, in complete harmony. This paradise was lost, deranged, and sullied by the “touch” of man and his hands. “Integration” then means to recreate the perfect harmony of a distant past, as if it had never been “touched”. (Again) and (re-) used above allude to this notion. The myth has been dismantled and replaced by “evolution” in many areas, of course. This is certainly true for Structural Integration because nobody’s structure was ever even near being “integrated” in the Rolf sense in childhood or early adulthood. Still, the myth is tenacious, and probably all Rolfers fall for it at least now and then. This is aided by some secondary effects which actually do recreate a former better state of matters. Rolfing makes the body more resilient, and it actually was more resilient in youth. Movement becomes easier as it once was. But for the core of Rolfing, structure, this was never so. And for Ida Rolf it was clear that normal structure hardly existed naturally but needed the hands of a Rolfer to be evoked consciously.

So what could be called the modern meaning of integer is “whole” as given by Webster’s, and “to integrate” means “1. to make or become whole or complete, 2. to bring (parts) together into a whole …”. The change in meaning can be explained by a switch in perspective. The notion of “whole”, “perfection”, “harmony” is shifted from being in the past and to be regained to lying ahead in the future where it first must be attained. Integrity is a goal ahead in time and when reached is a new state of affairs never realized before, at least in principle. This switch in perspective brings about new complications. It creates a certain insecurity because one cannot simply discover a past which serves as a model. The goal is formulated for the future, and this involves by necessity a certain degree of arbitrariness. This makes it even more important to stay aware of the relativity of the truth of Structural Integration, to remain flexible as to its formulation, and to keep in mind and regard how it relates to the whole person and if it actually is beneficial for the “Human” whose “structure” we “integrate”.

Structure and Function

Perhaps the most common interpretation of the term “structure” in the field of Rolfing is that it designates “the relationships of the parts of the body”. This appears as an appropriate description, but it is also in need of specification. For one, “parts” should be understood in a broad sense and not be confined to meaning conventional parts only: the forearm, the pelvis. Nor does it stand for bones and muscles only, and not even exclusively for “segments”. So I propose to keep the term open for however “parts” are defined meaningfully now and in the future. Emphasis is of course on the way in which such parts relate, but it is also obvious that when relationships are described the parts must at least be named to make sense.

The parts are material and placed in three-dimensional space. The relationship between them is so at first spatial, and the appropriate medium for their description is furnished by geometry. To this mechanical forces add in the form of gravity and the tensional and compressional properties of the fascial network, but also of the other soft tissue and the bones. The situation is adequately described by mechanics which so constitutes the base on which structural considerations in the Rolf sense rest, or have to rest.

All this suggests that structure can be assessed easily by simple visual perception. This impression is fallacious however because of a third mechanical factor entering the picture: active muscle tension. Muscles are always actively tensing the structure, an energy-consuming process which never stops but always changes. The effect of active muscle tension is not “structural” of course but “functional”. It acts permanently to distort and alter the visible appearance of a hypothetical “pure structure”. The consequence is that structure can never be seen directly but must be deduced from a larger whole which includes the functional element of active muscle tension.

The point is illustrated in a crass manner when a person walking is observed. At every fraction of a second the “relationships of the parts of the body” are vastly different. This change is obviously not the expression of a structural difference because structure is constant over short periods of time. It is exclusively due to changes of the functional element, the pattern of active muscle tension.

However, if we compare two persons walking, they do it in different ways. The reason is partly structural because their structures are different-, partly functional because they employ different functional patterns. But we can deduce that something in that rapidly and ever-changing “relationships of the parts of the body” is constant, expressing the individual structure. This constant is different for the two because their structures are different. But to define and describe this constant for each of them is not simple because it evidently cannot be demonstrated by one or more pictures of the visual appearance. The matter becomes even more complicated by the fact that one and the same person with its constant structure can walk in many different ways by simply employing various functional patterns. The constant of its structure contained in all the different manners of walking is not easily determined, especially if one imagines an able actor imitating the “typical” walks of entirely different characters in quick succession.

Fig.1 presents the situation schematically. The different levels from bottom to top indicate a progression in complexity. Gravity acts on the body in a constant manner although it affects its parts differently of course depending on their actual spatial configuration at a given moment in time. The surface of the earth against which gravity presses the body also acts on it: it pushes it up by its “Normal force”. It should be thought to be contained in the graph by “gravity”.

<img src=’https://novo.pedroprado.com.br/imgs/1989/1033-3.jpg’>
Fig.1 Schematic representation of some concepts. The arrows indicate strong influences but not exclusive determination. Dotted arrows are for long-term influences which are not relevant for short-term considerations.

Gravity acts first on the “structural body”, represented by “fascial network”. Fascia is loosely but sensibly defined as “all collagenous fibrous dense elements which are of mechanical relevance”. The term “fascial network” emphasizes the continuity and systemic character of “fascia, the organ of structure”. It can also be a little misleading, however. A “net” as an “openwork fabric” (Webster’s) relates points in space usually linearly. Although it separates two compartments of space in some respects – fish on one side can’t go to the other – it also features the essential property that the medium permeats it freely. A fishernet which doesn’t let the water pass through would be of no use! The aspect of the “net” with its linear relationships leads to tensegrity models.

In contrast to this, the fascial net consists primarily of two-dimensional planes which close unto themselves and so lock off compartments, “bags within bags within bags” (Wolf Wagner in Notes on S.I. 86/1). The more linear elements like tendons and some ligaments are suspended in two-dimensional sheets of fascia and can easily be interpreted as one-directional reinforcements of them. This aspect of closed planes makes pressure gradients possible and leads to hydrostatic balloon models.

The fascial network is only the major one of three elements with differing mechanical functions which make up the structural whole. Bones are also part of it; they act as spacers. All the other soft tissue: loose connective tissue and fat, the internal organs and muscle tissue proper – abstracting from its tensional property – form a sort of cushions or non-compressible but deformable padding between the fascial layers. Only the fascial net is continuous through the body, however. It contains “islands” of bones or soft tissue paddings.

“Tonus pattern” names the functional element which is superimposed on structure. “Tonus” is preferred over “tone” which has more general connotations including passive tissue tension and the degree of tissue resiliency which are subsumed under “fascial net” already. It is closest to the “reflex tone” of physiology and denotes exclusively that component of tension originating from muscle contraction which is proportional to the firing rate of efferent nerves and energy consumption. In the reality of the living body the tonus pattern cannot be separated neatly from passive tissue tension. So the tonus pattern just like structure is also a “mental construct” although it is based on a physical reality too. It has two properties: the geometrical distribution through the body and the quantity or degree of active tension exerted by every muscle or muscle part at a given time. Muscle tissue proper tenses the fascial net which transmits it along its paths and so affects the “islands”.

The fascial net or structure determines the tonus pattern insofar as it allows certain patterns but not others and decides how much tension muscles must exert. A structurally anterior tilt of the pelvis e.g. necessitates activity of a certain group of muscles which keep the body from collapsing down in front. The degree of the tilt decides on how much they must work. A posterior tilt engages a completely different set of muscles to keep the structure from collapsing down in back.

Structure so determines the functional element or tonus pattern in a concrete sense. But the problem remains that a given structure still permits a fairly wide range of tonus patterns. People can change their stance e.g. quickly and adopt a multitude of very different “relationships of the parts of the body” easily simply by employing various tonus patterns. These patterns are in part determined directly by the gravity field, and together with the tensional properties of the fascial net gravity determines exactly the amount of energy which a chosen pattern consumes. Although structure together with the constant background of the gravity field limits the range of tonus patterns which are possible and decides on how much effort any one of them needs, the selection of a given pattern at a given moment is influenced by a multitude of non-structural factors. Among them are the emotional and affective state at the moment, the degree of vigilance, the conscious or not conscious intention of what a person wants to communicate or withhold from being communicated, or volition. They don’t change structure in the short periods of time in question. They acquire great significance in the long run however because the repeated or long-lasting tonus patterns chosen shape structure, too. The arrow in III. 1 is drawn dotted to indicate the difference in time considerations. Similarly, gravity determines structure in the long run but not at a given moment. A third factor influencing the structure evolving needs to be mentioned. It would contain such influences as injuries, disease, and nutritional history which affect structure directly and not only via the tonus pattern.

The structural element represented by the fascial net and the functional element of the tonus pattern combine to make up the visible picture of the whole: movement/ posture. The term is clumsy and replaces the neater term “function”, which however is apt to create confusion. Of course Ida Rolf said that “Function is Movement” (Rolf, p.153), but common usage names as the opposite of “movement” not “structure” but “posture”: “not moving” or the absence of movement. The difference between “movement” and “posture” lies entirely in the tonus pattern which with the first changes rapidly in time while staying constant with the second for a certain period of time, as long as a posture is held. So movement and posture are not different in principle for the structural point of view, although in practice it is probably easier to recognize something about structure in posture, when the tonus pattern remains constant.

The terminology presents an awkward logical problem. “Function” as “movement/posture” represents a class which has two members: “structure” and the “functional element”. Because logic prohibits that a class be a member of itself, usage of the term “functional” should not – although it actually does – refer to both function as movement/posture and the functional element of the tonus pattern. Confusion is avoided if the two meanings are consciously held apart and ascribed to the correct level.

All this leads to realize that structure is not visible in a naive sense. Looking at the body or a photograph of it and simply describing the spatial arrangement of the parts or some property of it like the “line” does not result in having “captured” structure. The parts of the body might be arranged very differently a second later! It is essential to understand something about the functional element in order to be able to make sensible statements about structure. Structure must be distilled out of the primary reality of the appearance of the whole of movement/posture.

It may seem a little paradoxical that the more complex functional element is relatively easy to determine for the reason that structure is constant. It is much trickier to calculate the constant of structure out of the whole which is permanently shifting because of its unstable functional component. To visualize “pure structure”, one can imagine a person having lost consciousness or a freshly dead corpse. It still has all the structure but muscle tonus is zero or near it. Of course we need the body erect in the gravity field, and when we imagine trying to stand up such a body it is obvious that it won’t stand. Stance is function and depends on muscle tonus. But we could now imagine a tonus pattern which would serve the purpose of standing(2). In accordance with the basic economic premise of Rolfing we would choose the pattern which takes the least amount of overall tension and therefore energy(3). This would constitute the easiest stance possible for that structure. Such a procedure would permit to determine the relative order of different structures: the smaller the amount of active muscle tension needed, the better structural order would be. Or: the reciprocal value of the minimal necessary tension would be a measure for the degree of structural integrity.

But another consequence of this “experiment” promises to be illuminating. In easy stance, which is identical with the “structural point” (Notes on S.I. 87/1, p. 30), all the muscle tension throughout the body serves exactly to compensate for gravity’s unbalancing impact on the given structure. Less tension anywhere would cause collapse, more would take the body away from the structural point. So the tonus pattern would reflect exactly like a mirror the structural situation. This pattern could be called the “base tension” which would have the two features of the “geographical” distribution through the body and its overall amount, expressed by the rate of energy consumption. All the manifold other tonus patterns possible would be first characterized by a higher overall tension; they would be less economical than the “base tension” pattern. Since “base tension” results in a balanced body, any excess tension anywhere in the body would first disturb this balance. This would in turn call for additional tensing somewhere to cancel out this disturbance. A new kind of balance could and would so result with a higher overall tension and more compression in the body. In other words, when going from the structural point and “base tension”, any added tension would not only be superfluous but actually damaging the existing easy balance, originating a whole new set of muscles tensing. Because muscles can only “pull together”, any such other pattern than “base tension” would primarily serve to “shorten” the body, raise pressure in the joints, and create resistance which must be overcome in movement. This concept allows to sharply discern “good” muscle tension- “base tension” which is necessary to stay erect – from “bad” muscle tension which primarily upsets balance in easy stance. This corresponds to a phenomenon well known in practice: when a client is asked to release “superfluous” muscle tension consecutively, it can be seen by the observer and felt subjectively by the client that the body settles more and more on the ground. Both objective and subjective impressions show that the body becomes grounded in a physical sense and that balance improves because of it. If muscle relaxation goes beyond the point of “base tension”, the body begins to sink and collapse by definition. This is extremely useful clinically, of course, because it discloses exactly in which way gravity pushes the body down and reveals the structural shortcomings very clearly. This in turn permits to see and define very accurately intention, laying out what structural work is needed to improve the situation, which is equivalent to raising the degree of structural integrity.

Integration

The whole into which parts are to be brought together by Integration is more than man’s body, or man himself, even when seen as “whole man”: it is the “body in gravity”. It reaches beyond the individual and includes the environment. It is true that only one very limited aspect of man is considered: his structure, – and that only a part of the total environment is selected: the gravity field. So the scope of Structural Integration is at the same time larger than that of many disciplines dealing with man which do so with man in isolation, and reduced because it chooses only defined aspects. An advantage of the system lies in its potential for being described very concretely and accurately and still reaching beyond what appears as the natural border, man’s skin.

Such a description names the ways in which the parts of the whole relate. A system acquires the quality of wholeness when order prevails in it. Order is associated with simplicity, and so a body can be said to be highly ordered if its form is governed by a simple unifying principle. An integrated body is e.g. already well described by the statement that the gravity centers of all its segments lie on a vertical line. For a random body such a description is much more complicated, and therefore it is less ordered. It would have to spell out the exact relationship of each and all gravity centers to the others or the space coordinates.

A consequence of this is that bodies obeying the same simple order look similar in some way while random bodies don’t, all of them following their own individual “order” of low degree. This makes it obvious that other orders exist beside the Rolf order. Ballet dancers e.g. look very similar, and perhaps body-builders do too. Evidently their order is of a different kind. The Rolf order is dictated by gravity, and it makes sense and is justified only if the premise is accepted that this order should guarantee most economical functioning. The premise leads to a particular difficulty, for it can be said that if a body functions with maximal economy its structure must be integrated. The opposite is not true, however. If a body functions less economically, this can be because its structure is not integrated and doesn’t permit better function or because the individual chooses a less economical functional pattern although its structure would allow an easier one.

Something like a paradox emerges because usually more order is associated with less complexity. The system is more predictable and less open to chance. An integrated body however permits a much larger variation of movements, it has a wider range of spatial configurations it can attain functionally than a random body. This is possible because of optimal balance whereas the more precarious balance of random bodies narrows the range of possibilities if the body is to stay on its feet. Perhaps the paradox can be understood by realizing that a hierarchy is introduced with order which spans a wide field between the simple governing principle and a multitude of variations. A primarily complicated structure – which has to be that way to hold up in gravity – has much less potential for variances. A comparison with music illustrates the point. If a wide range and richness of variations is intended, it is advantageous to choose a simple theme usually called “deceptively simple”. A complicated theme is exhausted much faster.

Ida Rolf called the integrated structure “normal”. She definitively didn’t use the term in the common statistical sense for “average” nor in a “biologistic” sense to mean “natural”. It was a set concept for her, dictated by the conditions imposed on structure by gravity. She elucidated this norm explicitly and extensively in terms of blocks, the vertical, horizontals, etc. This could be called the structural definition of normal, and she called it expressedly a “Platonic idea” (Rolf, p.16). A relevant feature of Plato’s philosophy is that the worlds of the “ideal” and the “real” are forever separate and never mingle. So any real body can never be “normal” in a strict sense. The concept represents an absolute point-like goal which can never be attained exactly. Its immense value lies in that it defines absolutely the goal of Rolfing although it cannot be reached. The direction in which structure must change is defined equally exactly and specifically. It suggests that we can determine a by necessity always imperfect degree of integrity which is characterized by the distance between “real” structure and “normal”. “Normalizing” and “integrating” structure then means bringing it closer toward normal.

This structural concept of a “degree of normalcy” is purely quantitative. It allows to determine the relative degree of integrity which is given by how close to or far away from normal a real structure is found. This degree of integrity can be raised or it can deteriorate on a sliding scale.

As useful as the structural concept of “normal” is for the theory and practice, it fails to explain at least two phenomena. First, Ida Rolf clearly talked about integrated versus random bodies. Leaving euphemisms away, this can only mean that for her actually two groups of structures existed: the normal and the abnormal ones. Evidently a “normal” structure is closer to the absolute norm than a “random” structure, but just where exactly a random structure becomes normal is an open question. The structural definition doesn’t offer a clue, and so we can just say that a structure “sufficiently” close to the norm is normal, the term being in need of specification.

Another little mystery is presented by Ida Rolf’s cryptic remark that random bodies are destroyed by gravity but integrated ones supported by the same gravity. Obviously, support is not just the absence of destruction but contains something new and positive. Destruction is negative, support positive, and it seems all important to know where zero is. The notion suggests a qualitative difference, a qualitative step in “integrating” when the destructive effect of gravity not only decreases but suddenly reverses to becoming supportive. A qualitative difference is one in kind, a quantitative one in degree(4).

I often use an example which seems to serve well. When one buys a cheap do-it-yourself book-shelf and puts it together at home, the construction is not very stable in the beginning. With the weight of the books added, one of two things can happen: either the construction stabilizes because of the weight, or it breaks down, also because of the weight. One of both always happens, the shelf cannot stay in its original arrangement and balance. Which of the two is the case depends on the geometrical conditions at the outset. Two groups of arrangements so exist which are sharply defined by their different behaviour under load, but to which group a given arrangement belongs cannot be seen beforehand with certainty.

In Rolfing, the work is quantitative: the pelvis is a little more horizontal, the legs are a little straighter, and so on. At a certain moment in the progression a transition point is reached, a “critical mass of order”, where not only the body is pushed down less but is supported by gravity, acquires lift. Fortunately, Ida Rolf provides a second functional – definition of normal. It states that in a “satisfactorily Rolfed body in flexion extensors extend when flexors flex” (Feitis, p. 158). The sentence doesn’t distinguish between structure and function, and to make it pertain clearly to structure it could be reformulated that a structure is integrated – “sufficiently close to normal” – when and if it permits extensors to extend in flexion. This implies that the functional potential must be exhausted to be able to determine the degree of structural integrity and the shortcomings reliably.

This functional concept allows to differentiate structures and their integration further. Since it is equivalent to saying that the “line” can lengthen in movement, structures can be divided into those which are able to lengthen in a given movement and those which can’t. The second actually shorten(5) because the “line” can’t stay exactly as it is. With them the intention of Rolfing is to normalize them so far that they can lengthen. Within the group of structures which are able to lengthen the differences are only quantitative; they are all integrated. Those which can lengthen more easily and farther are “more” normal and have a higher degree of integrity.

This poses the new and different problem of which movement or posture is under consideration. They differ widely in their demands they put on structural integrity. If integrity is assessed by Folding on one leg e.g., one of the parts which must lengthen is the medial arch: the heel slides back. At the beginning of the movement, almost any structure will be able to let the heel go back. But with increasing flexion – with the folds going out in front and in back – more and more bodies will “drop out”: the extension is stopped and the heel moves in again, i.e. forward.

Sitting provides another and qualitative test. The majority of bodies are not even able to reach the normal sitting position. When they are normalized so far that they are, positively a qualitative step has happened. Sitting so sharply divides random structures from normal ones, provided function has been optimized. Within the group of normal structures, some are able to maintain the posture more easily and better than others. Their degree of structural integrity is higher, but the difference between these normal structures is only quantitative.

It appears that for all and any movement a normal and a random way can be discerned and demonstrated easily (flexion and extension mode). This depends on a concise and concrete knowledge about what constitutes normal function. Almost any movement can be used for discriminating normal from random structures. The demands they put on structural integrity vary widely, of course. The border which separates normal from random will be different with different movements. Once understood and defined, a standardized set of such movements might make it possible to determine structural integrity and its progress accurately and so furnish a reliable measure for evaluating a Rolfer’s Rolfing. The method promises to eventually be much more valid and reliable than direct measurements of “spatial relationships” which are always marred very much by the undefined variable of the tonus pattern.

Integration also names the process of integrating structure. Fig.2 shows schematically that it can be understood as circular. A cycle can be thought to apply to one move, a series of them, or a whole session. At the end of a cycle the degree of integrity is raised some. On the functional level the process is probably similar but with intervention directed to the nervous system instead of the fascial network. For Rolfing it is favorable to cross to the functional level – which is discontinuous with the structural one – in order to understand structure better (analysis) and to check functional progress (intention) which lastly is its goal.

<img src=’https://novo.pedroprado.com.br/imgs/1989/1033-1.jpg’>
Fig.2 – Cyclic process repeating itself in the course of integrating. The functional and structural levels are discontinuous.

Analysis means to recognize in which way the structural pattern is aberrant, as a whole or with a detail, to which end it must be compared with the template of normal. This leads in combination with the theory of the technique to a plan of how it is brought toward normal optimally: intention. The plan is then implemented: intervention. The result is analyzed anew and the cycle repeats itself on a somewhat higher level of integrity.

A hierarchy of at least four levels can be laid over this schema which should be helpful for making it more concrete.

1. The Basic Material Level of “Lengthening”

This is the lowest and most practical level of what we do in Rolfing: lengthening a tendon, widening a fascia, resolving knots, unsticking glue. The tissue is softened, made more fluid and resilient, lumps are taken out, tight strings are made to “give”. It’s the nuts and bolts of the craft, so-to-speak. The expression that one has done a “neat job” applies to this level. The tissue is treated like a material object, similar to a piece of cloth or strings. It doesn’t make much of a difference whether the object of work is inanimate or living. If done well, it can be compared to a tailor cutting and stitching swiftly so the pieces seem to fall into the right places all by themselves, or a surgeon moving rapidly and unobtrusively through the tissue unfolding and closing the operation site deftly(6), or even a psychotherapist placing the right intervention just at the right time.

Work on this level is quite impersonal and often a relief for clients who are tired of the all too frequent “personal relationship” they are asked to engage in, and they are grateful for technically competent work. To develop this, a Rolfer must take pleasure in handling bodies and their tissue and be keen on the aspect of craftmanship. But to acquire the necessary precision he must also combine the technical skill with clarity of intention which depends on an excellent theoretical knowledge. The feature which indicates that the technique is sophisticated and related to the higher levels is perhaps that a quality emerges which can be called “rhythm”.

2. Freeing

This level is more abstract than 1. It contains such notions as “freeing the 12th rib”, “opening a joint”, “creating space”, “separating fascial layers”, “delineating the lateral border of the trapezius”. The concepts on this level have to do with differentiation. They lead to more freedom in the body and may or may not of themselves move the body toward normal. But the goals on this level are basically apt to contribute to preparing the ground for the actual and conscious task of integration.

The hierarchy proposed here implies that the lower levels are not integration but in the service of it. The term “lengthening” appears on all levels. An example would be “lengthening the plantar aponeurosis” (level 1) in the service of the intention of “lengthening the medial arch” (2).

3. Organizing

The first two levels are not specific for Rolfing but shared with other methods. This means that if one follows the guidelines of “rigidity”, “knots”, etc., relieving all of them, one will arrive at a “free” body but not necessarily integration. With “organizing” geometry comes in as a consideration and the field of Structural Integration is entered. Some further distinctions can be made. In a more restricted sense (3a), a relatively narrow area of the body is organized, as e.g. in “organizing the tissue around the iliac crest”. This might include “cleaning the crest” (1), “lengthening the quadratus” (1), “freeing the 12th rib” (2), “delineating the lateral border of the lumbodorsal fascia” (2) by “lifting it, lengthening it, and taking it medial” (1). The lower level intentions are in the service of attaining the goal formulated on level 3.

In a somewhat more general sense (3b), a leg can be organized e.g. A “leg” is not only larger than “the tissue around the iliac crest” or “the space between crest and 12th rib”, but it also has many more and new structural and functional implications and is so on a higher level of abstraction. It includes a multitude of interventions on the lower levels but also of organization in the narrower sense, as e.g. “balancing the tensor and the gluteus maximus” (3a). Examples for level 1 and 2 which produce the 3b goal could be: “lengthening the hamstrings” (1), “widening the retinacula” (1) to “open the ankle joint” (2), “releasing the interosseous membrane” (2), etc.

Finally in the most general sense (3c), the whole body can be organized around the Line, which is a vast description and entails all kinds of goals on the lower levels. It almost approaches level 4.

4. Integrating

This level characterizes the field of Rolfing. In addition to geometry entering the picture on level 3, mechanical forces must now be regarded. The difference to 3c becomes clear when one organizes a body as best as possible on the table only to find that in standing up it doesn’t hold up as it should. It can be compared to building a car with all the best planning (organizing). It still has to be test-run and changed around to really work the way it should (integrating).

When the intention for a move is integrating, it can strictly speaking only be done with the “body in gravity” as in sitting or standing. An example for direct integration (4) could be to “place the heel better under the lower leg” (3b) by “freeing the medial malleolus from the calcaneus” (2) by “lengthening the deltoid ligament” (l). Wether this results in better integration or in collapse can only be judged directly by working with the client standing.

Some useful implications become apparent when one relates this hierarchy of levels to the cyclic process shown in Fig.2. It is obvious that analysis and intention lastly always go from and toward level 4. In contrast to this, intervention is always essentially on level 1. This suggests a complete cycle as shown in Fig.3. Naturally one will not go through the whole cycle with every move. But in principle a Rolfer should be able to recreate the scheme and fill it with concrete content. For, an intervention about which it is not clear what goal on level 4 it is supposed to achieve is highly dubious. Similarly, if the level 4 goal has been defined but the intervention belonging to it is not clear as to how and why it should serve that goal it would seem to depend largely on good fortune to actually turn out useful.

<img src=’https://novo.pedroprado.com.br/imgs/1989/1033-2.jpg’>
Fig.3 – Levels laid over the cyclic process of Fig.2.

Summary

Ida Rolf’s system is in practice a manipulative method and in theory introduces a completely novel way of looking at the human body and its function. She named it Structural Integration. The semantics of the two terms already reveals some interesting aspects of her theory.

“Structure” as “that which has been put together” shows on closer examination to be more a sophisticated concept of the mind than a part of physical reality which can be isolated and described directly. The primary reality perceived visually is function, understood as the body moving or posing. It can be broken down into two mental constructs: structure and a functional element. The first is represented by the fascial net, the second by the tonus pattern of the whole of the musculature. For understanding structure in a concrete and concise manner an equally concise and concrete theory of the functional element is necessary. This is in turn provided and made possible by the developed theory of the basic structural concepts. In practice, the functional element must be known and the same for two persons to compare their structures, and it must be identical to assess the integration of structure in one and the same person. The two concepts mutually depend on each other and form something like a self-referent cycle. This would permit to place the system anywhere in the “space of the mind” arbitrarily. Gravity as the common bracket for both determines an exact and sharply defined place for the system however. The basic framework for description and evaluation is supplied by mechanics.

“Integration”, “bringing (parts) together into a whole”, first necessitates a definition of the “whole”. Ida Rolf does this by her theory of “normal structure”. This absolute norm constitutes an ordering principle for the structure of the body. From bodies which are in the Rolf order other bodies can be distinguished which are organized along different orders or which are “random”, i.e. possess no discernable unifying principle of form. The structural norm is complemented by a functional norm which derives from the first. The structural norm can only be approached but not reached while the functional one can be realized. A hierarchy from easy to more demanding movements and postures would furnish the means for determining accurately and sensibly the degree of structural integrity of a body.

It would also serve to assess critically and realistically the progress in the process of integration. This is described as a circle from analysis to intention to intervention which repeats itself. Four levels for analysis and intention are proposed. This assures that the systemic focus on the “body-in-gravity” is not lost while at the same time rendering rational intervention which always takes the form of a geometrical and material change of an element of the fascial net. In principle it would make a “structural logic” possible which would explain why separating the semitendinosus and semimembranosus tendons at the left knee advances structural integrity, and vice versa why the goal of integration calls for this intervention at a given moment.

It appears that the name Ida Rolf chose for her system is extremely apt to help developing the theory, which depends on better defined terms, which in turn depends on that theory being developed.

Notes

1. Etymology kindly provided by Peter Flury of the “Thesaurus Linguae Latinae”, Munchen.

2. This thought experiment abstracts from small movements always present which guarantee functional balance.

3. Naturally only free stance is allowed; sleeve-supported stance is not a valid solution.

4. Ida Rolf names as the sign which tells that the zero point has been passed in the Rolfing series the impression that clients have progressed further between sessions instead of having lost part of the gain.

5. The term is meant functional here and must not be confused with its structural counterpart.

6. Sometimes Rolfing almost acquires a surgical quality, characterized by precision, sparing and considerate work. But it must be realized that surgeons also master their craft very differently. With some, every operation seems to literally turn into a bloody mess while others appear to glide effortlessly through the tissue and blood is hardly to be seen. Interestingly enough they say that they have to catch the “right layer”.