Bodymind Integration : Approaching the person as a whole.

“Therapy on the body without doing integrated work with emotions and thoughts is just as one-sided as psychotherapy that ignores bodily processes. In addition, work with a person should offer them perspective and integration with “the whole”.

Dirk Marivoet

Summary: Most contemporary systems of psychotherapy and body therapy are extrapolations from the reductionist view that was common in the 19th century. The author describes three main branches of this reductionism: monistic, dualistic and parallel world views, each of which has led to certain derived therapeutic modalities. He critically examines the “holistic” vision that opposes this position, and which is often improperly or incompletely claimed by “alternative” therapies. Body and mind are sometimes separated in their treatment philosophy and methodology in clear, and sometimes more subtle ways. It is being investigated what an “integrated” approach should involve that transcends a purely causal relationship between “body” and “mind”.

Extrapolations from the reductionistic view

Reductionism. 

19th century science considered the universe as a collection of related, but essentially separate parts and particles, each of which could be studied and understood separately (Bohm, 1980). Most systems of psychotherapy and body therapy are extrapolations from this reductionist view (reductionism assumes that complex phenomena can always be understood by reducing them to their basic building blocks, and by examining which mechanisms interact with each other). Numerous health care systems still consider the person to be an amalgam of parts. In this view, the whole is seen as the sum of the parts. Without explicitly wanting to understand all the philosophical aspects of this theme (I leave that to people who are more qualified in this), I would like to briefly distinguish three main branches in the world view of the “person as parts”: monism, dualism and parallelism. Each of these approaches results in different therapeutic approaches because of its belief system.

Monism.

The typical monistic approach is the extremely reductionist approach that states that everything that exists is physical. Our mental experiences, our thoughts and feelings can all be explained by physical processes (synaptic transmission, the firing of neurons, etc.). Consciousness, and self-awareness (two things that seem to cause people to look for answers beyond the physical) are by-products of the biological processes. Thus, in the monistic view, mind is nothing but the product of electrophysical chemistry in the brain; i.e., a person is equivalent to the functioning of his or her organs, and problems can be traced and then treated by healing the organs involved (biological psychiatry, etc.). In this world view we also encounter a good dose of determinism (every event – as well as human actions – has a cause, in which the order and nature of events is completely determined by causal laws). For example, modern neuroscience was not able to develop until after the theory of inbornness from Descartes’ ideas had been abandoned.

Dualism

Mind and body are considered to be completely separate from each other, and each part requires separate treatment; verbal therapy for mental problems and physical therapy for physical discomfort. In some dualistic approaches, it is believed that there is a certain effect from one domain to another, yet it is believed that correct treatment lies in the domain where the “real problem” exists. Kepner (1987) defines these methods of treatment arising from a dualistic model as singular ( see below).

Parallelism

The domain of mind and body are seen as separate, but connected, in such a way that they have inevitable effects on each other. Psycho-parallelists believe that the workings of the mind reflect the workings of the body, and vice versa – mental and physical events are only correlated, there is no causal force in any of the parts. Depending on the extent to which the parts are considered connected, problems in one domain will be seen as a function or dysfunction in the other. Change in one part will then have an impact on the other. For example, in the case of parallelism, it is believed that psychological stress affects the body by physiological arousal. Physical complaints can be the result of emotional conflicts, or physical discomfort can cause mental depression, for example. Kepner (1987) calls treatment approaches based on a parallel relationship between body and mind, alternating methods.

Holism, or Pseudo-holism?

Holism is the scientific counterpart of reductionism. Holism has therefore been one of the buzzwords within the humanist, transpersonal, complementary health care, and new age movements for a few decades. In the popular mythology of these movements, holism is widely regarded as a self-evident “good thing,” representing the notion that various forms of splits can be resolved, healed, or transcended into some higher-order integration. Indeed, such integration is often equated with health and maturity, whether in the personal, social or political sphere. The term “Holism” is a seductive, but at the same time a treacherous concept that means different things to different people. In what follows I ask to what extent certain visions of holism are really useful and valid

A definition

Holism according to Kramers is the doctrine of the primary value of the whole, of the organism as a whole. Van Dale says: ho · lis · m (the ~) 1 view that there is a coherence in reality that only appears from a consideration of the whole and cannot be found in the parts. In other words, it is the theory that the parts of each whole can only exist and are understood in their relation to the whole; “Holism, moreover, means that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” Thus, from this definition, individual elements of a system are determined by their relationships to all other elements of that system. A complex entity cannot be regarded simply as the sum of its parts; as an anthropological principle, the premise is that every aspect of human life should be studied with regard to its relationship to all other aspects of human life. In micro perspective, holism means that the human organism is conceived as a living system, the physical and mental components of which are interdependent and connected. In the macro perspective it means that it is assumed that an individual organism is in constant interaction with its natural and social environment.

A few interpretations and versions

Perhaps the most popular version or interpretation of holism is the belief in the integration of body, mind and spirit. Ideologically this is understood to mean the fundamental inseparability of the person’s physical, mental and spiritual being. Therapeutically, it refers to the importance of treating the person as a “whole” person, as well as to the “healing” resulting from the personal integration of these three aspects. This powerful and attractive metaphor has been enthusiastically promoted by many who follow the new paradigms adhere to health and psychology. In my opinion, however, it is often limited and watered down. One of the main reasons for this is that, within the various new paradigms, it is largely equated with the “positive thinking” approach that is polarized and unintegrated in itself. This is often a fairly utopian approach in which everything is or can become perfect and beautiful. This kind of holism promotes the possibility of what is seen as a perfect integration of the healthy body, the positive mind and the divine mind. This becomes apparent in the way the new paradigms usually focus on and idealize youth, physical beauty, imagination, creativity, love, empathy, happiness, self-realization, enlightenment, peak experiences, ecstasy, and peace. The problem with this kind of holism is that it is simply not holistic enough. Rather than being truly integrative, it reinforces the split of, say, good vs. evil, life vs. death, youth vs. old age, health vs. sickness, beauty vs. ugliness, imagination vs. logic, love vs. hate, and ecstasy vs. dismay. In this way it denies, suppresses, or demonizes what Jung calls his “shadow” (For a review of the shadow, see Zweig and Abrams (1996), or Pierrakos (1996) calls the Lower Self. It is an approach that, like Rollo May (1969) noted, being unable to fully recognize or deal with the so-called “negative aspects” of the human experience such as illness, fear, hostility, stagnation, and therefore such a view cannot be a truly integrative or holistic view I therefore offer and call this form “pseudo-holism”.

I also consider pseudo-holistic the approaches that are all too easily opposed to the “old paradigms”. They make frantic efforts to confirm their own unique identities and differentiate themselves from the “old paradigms”. These approaches have generally identified with what they see as the positive side of the split, while projecting much of the negative side onto their opponents. This inevitably leads to a fragmented and incomplete vision. Even worse, some “holistic” practitioners reject or devalue scientific and cognitive processes that accumulate knowledge. A more holistic approach attempts to integrate and heal the splits. She recognizes the need to integrate the supposedly negative, dark aspects of human nature. Moreover, a true philosophy of the Whole cannot exclude reductive research, because the research provides in detail the data that compose the whole. Such an approach is nothing new under the sun. We find them in existentialist thinking and in many psychotherapeutic theory and practice.

Applying this principle to the body-mind-spirit metaphor means that we must deal with the shadow as it manifests in each of these domains. In relation to the body, this means accepting pain, illness, aging and dying. On the mind level, we should appropriate and cope with our anxiety, depression, jealousy, anger, and other seemingly negative emotions, as well as the rational, analytical, and conceptual thinking often devalued and neglected in the new paradigms. Spiritually, we need to find a way to reconcile ourselves with meaninglessness, tragedy, human weakness, loss of faith, existential guilt, and “the dark night of the soul.” When looking specifically at body therapy, we need to watch out for polarized , idealistic tendencies in our approach to the person. In practice this can be seen as a kind of cult-like certainty, charismatic enthusiasm, spiritual glorification. On the other hand, a little self-doubt and humility is not only refreshing, but also essential I believe. Likewise, we should attempt to balance our interest in self-realization, peak experiences, ecstasy, and the “positive” effects of meditation with research into failure, trough experiences, and certain real-world risks.
All this should be connected to the bigger picture of our life plan.

Horizontally and vertically. 

We still have another important problem. The above form of holism remains largely an individually oriented holism. What is the role of other people, social and cultural systems, the earth and the ecosystem in this model? How do you understand the relationship between the individual and other realities? To solve this problem, we need to integrate the individual body-mind spirit (“positive” and “negative”) into the social, cultural and natural worlds. thus, as Warwick Fox (1993) proposes to find ways to respect and integrate all “four quadrants”. These are defined by combinations of the “inside-outside” and “individual-collective” dimensions of evolution.

The “vertical” development of the person towards higher forms of (spiritual) consciousness should be integrated with a “horizontal” vision that emphasizes the importance of our expansion and sense of self outward to a wider and deeper identification with the natural world reach.

In other words, we need to connect our egocentric and anthropocentric (vertical) dimension to our biocentric or ecocentric (horizontal) dimension. There is a huge difference between being able to understand that this kind of Holism requires an integration of upstream and downstream flows, or the dimensions of inside-outside and individual-collective, and truly capable of achieving this integration. This is the difference between what Ken Wilber (1994) calls the map and the territory. Holism or integration should ultimately be achieved in the life experience, not through models.

Back to the body in therapy: 

Therapy approaches from the reductionist view.

Singular (single) approaches:

The prevailing therapies, whether psychotherapy or physical therapy, have traditionally been “singular” in their approach to the person.

Psychological therapies such as psychoanalysis (Freud, 1938), client-centered (Rogers, 1951), and others use interventions that are almost exclusively verbal. Physical processes are often seen as epiphenomena that are connected to, but separate from, the underlying mental events. Equally singular in form are numerous body therapies, such as Rolfing (Rolf, 1977), the Alexander technique (Alexander, 1971), and the Feldenkrais. technique (Feldenkrais, 1972). These and other somatic approaches recognize the contribution of psychological processes in the formation of body tension and postural imbalances. However, they do not have a formal methodology to work with psychological processes or link psychological processes to somatic work. The singular approach, whether psychotherapeutic or body therapeutic, has an important philosophical and methodological problem!

Even if verbal psychotherapy pays attention to physical phenomena, such as by interpreting physical symptoms, the somatic methodology (direct work with the body) that the person leaves with a sense of separate parts that linearly interact with each other is missing. Connected: The mental conflict causes the physical symptoms, rather than a dilemma of the entire organism with various manifestations. Some singular approaches go so far as to assume an interdependence (but not real holism!) of mind and body. . It is often assumed that if you change psychological processes (conflict or defense), you also change the physical structure that depends on it. And from a physical point of view: if you change the structure of the body, you change the function (psychological) that depends on it.

For example, I was once told in an NLP workshop by the trainer that if you could help a depressed person to raise his posture and eye position, for example by teaching him to play basketball, this would also eventually lead to his mental attitude. change. If the treatment of depression were so easy, we wouldn’t need much therapy. A depressed person is unable to maintain an un-depressed attitude! neither physically nor psychologically, until all depressed domains are liberated and integrated! The reverse is also true: The psychodynamic exploration of conflict and suppressed impulses inherent in depression will not necessarily change the shallow breathing and depressed attitude of the client. This is not to say that the integration of a postural imbalance could not change by lifting the client’s mental constructs and attitudes, but this change is never based on a causal relationship from part to part (body on mind or spirit on body), but the fact that these aspects belong to the whole.

Alternate approaches

A possible attempt to overcome the dilemma of “singular approaches” is to give due attention to the respective physical and psychological aspects of the person by alternating physical and mental therapy methods. This is a logical step for many therapists, whether psychotherapists who learned body-oriented interventions or somatic therapists who learned therapeutic skills. Such an alternation of techniques can then take place within one session, or within several sessions. They take place at different times, and there is no attempt to work simultaneously with body and psychological processes. The problem with this approach is that, since there is a clear distinction between somatic and psychological work, the feeling of splitness in the person ( client as well as therapist) may increase. It is difficult to experience a sense of its own unity when bodywork and psychological work happens at different times, which is not to say that integration (the sense of self as a whole) cannot occur through an alternating approach. However, integration depends on certain client capabilities that therapists cannot automatically assume. In addition, the therapies used may contain philosophical and methodological inconsistencies that may be conflicting and confusing to the client.

Layered Approaches

Some body-centered therapists work in a “layered approach”. For example: The therapist can start by having the client conduct a Gestalt dialogue, eg a conversation between different parts of the self. Simultaneously, the therapist works on the client’s muscular tension and posture. The work looks elegant; two parallel but different voices that together form a melody line. However, the physical and psychological methods remain separate voices, although they work together. To the untrained eye, the work seems integrated, but it is not because methods used together are a guarantee of the client’s experience together.

Another problem with a layered approach is that the physical and psychological methods are derived can be from various theoretical and philosophical sources. For example, client-centered and transactional analysis do not have an explicit “understanding” of body phenomena in their theory and methods. Using these methods along with a body method makes it likely that the layers of physical and psychological work remain parallel and unintegrated. There is no explicit understanding of the importance or relationship of body phenomena and emotional processes, meaning that methodologically they do not have a clear way of bringing the different layers together, and there may be different views of the person’s vision between different methods. and the nature of voltage or resistance. For example, there are important differences between Gestalt, Rolfing and Reichian approaches, for example, in their view of tension and resistance, but it would be too tempting to go into this in detail in the context of this article. So if the therapist uses Rolfing and Gestalt together, for example, he is in principle no longer faithful to the theory and spirit of Rolfing, respectively Gestalt therapy, or both, a truly integrated approach as we find it in Postural Integration (PI), for example. Painter, 1987) is looking for holism, both in his methodology and in his view of the person.

An approach such as PI has been influenced by Gestalt, Rolfing, Reichian therapy, etc., but is integration and synthesis from thesis and antithesis within the method, making it not an eclectic approach or a sum of partial therapies. For a description of this method I refer to “Deep Bodywork and Personal Development” (Painter, 1987).

Suggestion for an Integrated Approach

An integrated approach, such as Core Strokes or its predecessor Postural Integration, looks at a process (such as conflict, a life theme, a physical symptom) as part of a larger whole, which includes both somatic and psychological aspects. Every psychological theme (eg conflict between parts of self, emotional trauma, unfinished interaction) is part of a larger gestalt that expresses the physical expression of that dilemma (eg tension pattern, body way, breath inhibitions) includes. Every physical symptom, such as a chronic tension or an attitude disorder, in turn is an expression of a larger whole, which contains a psychological dilemma and is part of its expression.

The classic psychosomatic view in psychotherapy is that the mental conflict is the physical causes symptoms. The integrated vision looks at both parts as a unitary expression of the self, or of the organism. Wilhelm Reich (1949), referred to this as the functional identity of body and mind.

In terms of method, an integrated approach brings together all aspects of the person so that the person can experience himself as a unitary organism rather than a mixture of parts . In this regard, the therapeutic technique should not separate the person by dealing with one aspect of the person as if it were intrinsically different or separate from the other.

More concretely:

• Psychological processes that are articulated – eg conflicts or beliefs – are explicitly linked to their physical expression
• Physical processes such as posture, muscle tension, and physical ailments are seen as meaningful expressions of the person.
• Both physical and psychological processes are considered as aspects of the same whole (the person / organism) and the division into parts. Therapeutic technique strives to restore the sense of self as a whole and to ensure the mutual identity of the parts.

Conclusion 

I strongly support the idea that the “philosophical environment” of therapeutic practice, as well as the basis of its ethical responses, should be the modern integrative “whole-system” worldview. There is much in this article that may seem critical to the new paradigms. It was always my intention to come to a clear formulation of the possibility of integrating body and mind into the practice of personal growth. I hope this text can be a small contribution to a truly holistic and integrated way of dealing with ourselves, our fellow man and the world. The traditional separation between psychological and somatic methods should not only be bridged, but psyche and soma should be united in the person and in the method, and be related to social and transpersonal worlds (Transpersonal is a perspective or point of perception that allows to see the concept of ‘individual’ in its relationship to the larger ‘whole’).

Literature

Alexander, F. M. (1971). The resurrection of the body. New York: Dover.

Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the implicate order. Boston: Ark. In het Nederlands: David Bohm, Heelheid en de Impliciete Orde, Lemniscaat, Rotterdam, 1985.

Feldenkrais, M. (1972). Awareness through Movement. New York: HarperCollins. In het nederlands: Feldenkrais, M., Bewustworden door bewegen.

Fox, W. (1993). “Transpersonal Ecology”. In R. Walsh & F. Vaughan (eds.). Paths Beyond Ego: The Transpersonal Vision. Los Angeles: Tarcher.

Freud, S. (1938). The basic writings of Sigmund Freud (A. Brill, Ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

Kepner, J. (1987). Body Process: A Gestalt Approach to Working with the Body in Psychotherapy. New York: Gardner Press.

Marivoet D. (1998), Angst bewerken door integratie van lichaam en geest, in Catechetische Informatie. ma/ap.

Marivoet, Dirk H. (2012). Bodymind Integration and Social Evolution. In: Erken, Rita & Bernhard Schlage. Transformation of the Self with Bodymind Integration. pp. 95-145.

May, R. (1969), Love and Will.

Painter, J. (1987). Deep Bodywork and Personal Development. Mill Valley: Bodymind Books.

Pierrakos, John, Energetica van de Ziel. (Core Energetics) Becht, 1996.

Reich, Wilhelm.(1949) Character-Analysis: Principles and Technique for Psychoanalysts in Practice and in Training. NY: Orgone Institute Press.

Rogers, C.R. (1951). Client-Centered therapy: Its current practice, implications and theory. Boston: Houghton, 1951.

Rolf, I.P. (1977). Rolfing: The Integration of human structures. New York: Harper-Collins.

Wilber, Ken.(1994), Zonder grenzen. Amsterdam, Karnak.

Zweig Conny & Jeremiah Abrams (red.) (1996), Ontmoeting met je schaduw. Servire.