Feldenkrais (1904-1984), a scientist of his time

or when the whole is not equal to the sum of its parts

Feldenkrais (1904-1984), a scientist of his time
or when the whole is not equal to the sum of its parts

[article inspired by Moshe Feldenkrais’ selection of books in relation to San Francisco Training Program, 1975]

by Stéphanie Ménasé
(Doctor of Philosophy, Feldenkrais practitioner, Assistant trainer)

Browsing through the titles collected by Feldenkrais, we note a certain diversity in the spheres covered, but the works he mentions are all, or almost all, works by contemporaries or individuals scarcely older than himself, in any case works that share the advances, research and humanist conceptions of his time. And, in short, these works, from different points of view, all tend towards a deepening of the human being and his humanity. When these authors are older, they are scientists who have, in their own way, each revolutionized their discipline and/or contributed major views in a field, on a subject, a perspective or in relation to a methodology.

Feldenkrais, as we know, was nourished by every understanding, every discovery, in every person who had pushed their singularity far enough as an expression of their very life in an intensity of quality, to be able to contribute something unique and to participate in the improvement of the relationship between human beings, and for a way of living, behaving and thinking endowed with freedom but respectful and energizing this exemplary dimension of which every man is a possible representative. In relation to Darwin, for example, it’s not his work on species selection – for which he is best known – that Feldenkrais mentions, but his study of emotional expression – a work that follows on from Darwin’s study of human evolution.

The entries are designed to highlight the ways in which these authors may echo the research that moves Feldenkrais. It’s up to us to see what we can do with them to deepen the “vision” of Feldenkrais, as well as the subjects themselves. Some may think that, for example, works dealing with neurology could be outdated and therefore uninteresting. I haven’t read all these books, but having been around authors and thinkers who are sometimes much ancient, I dare to suggest that it’s quite possible that the way these scientists went about studying the different parts of the nervous system and investigating how it works, on different hypotheses and modes of investigating cognitive processes or the quality of their observation, may well outstrip current studies, which are technically more advanced but methodologically impoverished – due to a predominance of statistical aspects or a lack of consideration for the context, the field of observation beyond the measurement we wish to make of it, and an insufficiently comprehensive conception of the human project[design]. Highly sophisticated tools are of no help if you have fixed idea of what you’re looking for in a very narrow frame, nor of the presuppositions or preconceptions you carry and sometimes take for granted, certainties that are not questioned, or even put forward and defended.

What might interest him in this neurological, neurobiological, neurophysiological, cognitivist and developmental literature could be the relationship between structure and function in the workings of the brain, and understanding how these are elaborated in order to work towards updating them in the event of lesions, as well as discoveries and functioning. Take, for example, his introduction and mention of « the reticular activation system » to give an idea of what’s going on during an ATM process, during one of his Workshop, in 1980 (South Bend,circa 60′ disc 4).

A link can also be made, for example, between Wertheimer’s ^[1] contributions to the understanding and analysis of cognitive processes and the idea that came to Feldenkrais when he worked with this cultivated, polyglot woman, Nora (The Case of Nora, 1977) who, after a stroke, could no longer read or write and was in a state of severe depression. Feldenkrais idea is to get her to write numbers (Ibid., p. 4). MF alludes to Broca in this passage, but it’s possible that reading Wertheimer also reinforced this idea. MF adds, moreover, that he was aware of the work showing that numbers and letters are processed differently in the Cognitive System, so he said to himself: “I’ll give it a try” ^[2] (ibid.). In addition to the interest of such an ability to have new options for investigation and approach, he then assumes the position of limiting the writing activity to the number register for as long as necessary “so as to avoid her discouragement through possible failure” (p. 4). And here we can assume that he is invoking all his experience and knowledge of the individual’s relationship to learning (Ornstein, Schilder, Selye and Machover, as well as many others), and especially of the disruptive aspect for self-regulation (essential to the empowerment of an individual’s abilities) of encountering only failure: not insisting against what resists. An idea (see Schrödinger’s thought experiments) emerges from a combination of factors, knowledge, experience, process and imagination.

Moshe Feldenkrais developed an ingenious, non-intrusive Method, which assumes that everything man needs for optimum life continuation, he already has: it’s the way they’re used, the way they’re invoked, the way they’re developed, or the project behind them, which are sometimes incoherent and irrelevant, and which don’t allow the individual to find new, adapted dispositions ensuring greater freedom of action – of which thinking is one manifestation.

***