Sunday, October 13, 2019. Having finished the final day of the first half of Part 3 of the Rolf Movement Training (the 4th day, the 25th day overall), I arrived at Haneda Airport late at night (around 11:30 p.m.) on Emirates via Dubai.
It was my first time abroad since February 2018 (see “Pre-movement, Yoga, and the Alexander Technique“).
This time, too, it is a valuable opportunity to come into contact with people of different cultures, centered on Europe — Germans, Swiss, French, Italians, Spaniards, British, and Austrians.
When presenting an Embodiment, if there is an experience such as words not coming across clearly or an unpleasant feeling in the body’s sensation, the European people convey it clearly.
A Japanese person would convey it more softly, I think; but afterward, everyone laughs and talks amiably without any lingering ill feeling, and I could feel the interest of taking a workshop in a foreign country.
On the final day, I too presented an Embodiment, second. Pairing up, back to back, a simple movement was done in which one person leads the movement and the other follows it.
Leaving a little pause, walking slowly so as to be aware of the body’s sensation — a group session of about 10 minutes for 15 people.
There was even a moment of being told, “your voice isn’t carrying, so louder!”; but laughter came partway through, and at the end there was even a scene of the partners exchanging opinions without anything being said — it was fun.
In the feedback, from the students there were things like “the holding of the space went well” and “the instructions were clear”; on the other hand, there were also participants without flexibility, and there were honest comments such as “while moving, the spine of the back was hard to move and it hurt.”
This time’s three Rolf Instructors — Rita Geirola, France Hatt-Arnold, and Herve Baunard — also gave points for improvement, such as that it is important to observe the students and provide support as needed. Comments like “it’s better to put a blanket on the back; it’s easier to move standing than sitting,” and so on.
The apt feedback on the spot was truly appreciated and, as I will describe later, can be considered as a point for improvement in preparing the 50-minute presentation to be done in the next Part 3.
What is interesting is the point that the three Instructors devise various things to create a safe space. The amount of information in the Embodiment is large, and several people dropped out; the Instructors themselves gave sessions to students, and it was striking to see the Instructors calling on each of the 18 students individually.
Among other things:
- That doing work that prompts curiosity makes it highly likely that the body changes.
- That an atmosphere is created in which failure, too, is forgiven.
- That the Instructors’ instructions are made suggestion-type, without imposition.
Recently, I read Amy C. Edmondson’s The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation and Growth. It seems that what is necessary for a company to produce innovation — creating a “psychologically safe space (Psychological Safety)” in which failure is forgiven and free speech is allowed — is drawing attention.
How to devise and create a safe space? Amy’s book introduces various cases, and states that it is important to build into the workshop, as a mechanism, “by all means preparing an environment in which failure can be forgiven.”
Japan tends to be a relatively unforgiving environment toward failure and to become constricting, but the good thing about the Training taken at the European Rolfing Association is that such a space is created.
Through these experiences, I have a feeling that I can put this to use when I hold seminars and communities. Including seminars, rather than a teacher-and-student relationship, how to create a safe space and draw out each person’s opinion? I’d very much like to learn from this.
As an aside, this time one of the partners I was grouped with in threes was a practitioner of the Feldenkrais Method. Through that connection, I had an opportunity to ask about the difference between Feldenkrais and Rolf Movement.
Feldenkrais and Rolf Movement each pursue minute movements, but he said the characteristic is that Feldenkrais does not contain content such as Rolf Movement’s Phoric Function (see “Where to Pay Attention in Movement? — Phoric Function and Fixed Point”), Tonic Function and Rolfing’s Five Principles, whereas the principles are built into Rolf Movement.
I’m thinking of taking a Feldenkrais class at some point, so I’d like to find an opportunity to experience firsthand how it differs from Rolf Movement.
The whole schedule finished, and the next holding is November 27 (Wednesday). I will receive certification on December 1 (Sunday).
As homework for next time, an assignment for a 50-minute Embodiment was given. Building the Embodiment is required on two points:
- What was your strategy to connect the specific to general (what strategy was taken to connect the general and the specific?)
- How do you bring the session to an end and have the client bring back to their every day life (how to close the session and make it applicable to daily life?)
So I have about a month and a half. I’d like to proceed while thinking it over carefully.