Thoughts on “Core”

imprecise nature of her formulation; on

the other hand, Feitis is clearly implying a
relationship, if not an equivalence, between
“core” and “intrinsics” – but what is it?

On Core (and Sleeve) That “intrinsic” is not equivalent to “core” in

Feitis’ view is made clear by this intriguing
speculation: “intrinsic movement as a
By Stephen Paré, Certified Rolfer™ whole is initiated from the core of the body,
most probably by the older vegetative
autonomic nervous system,” since the core
An earlier version of this article appeared in the February 2003 issue of Structural Integration. in this formulation is a discrete entity. 3
The entry concludes by claiming that
“electromyographic research has shown
that Rolfing achieves this kind of core-

…I n which a review of existing

theories leads to yet another
theory; that, too, is rejected in favor of the
usually called the sleeve – following Rolf
– is naturally also of interest, though some
writers are more interested in thinking
sleeve independence.” 4 But the reference
for this research is to an unpublished
manuscript, and the core and sleeve
priority of tradition; and the essay proceeds about it than others).
have previously been neither defined nor
to an appeal for a return to Ida Rolf ’s
The essay will go further, by proposing a distinguished. Therefore, such a statement
original formulation. But this is discovered
modification as well as a clarification of can convey nothing precise. She says that
to be ambiguous; and the essay concludes,
the “core as viseral space” theory, one that “the girdles should be sufficiently free so
inconclusively, with speculation as to what
links to a more traditionally recognized that their actions do not distort the serenity
to do for the best.
binary division; namely, the ancestral of the core.”5 Does this mean that the pelvic
The question of the definition of the core of chordate opposition of dorsal versus and pectoral girdles are the sleeve? And
the body is a much-vexed one in Rolfing® ventral. To support this, information will what does that have to do with intrinsics
circles. Indeed, it is difficult to find complete be adduced from vertebrate morphology, and extrinsics?
agreement between any two writers on fetal and early childhood development, and
E l s e w h e re i n t h e s a m e b o o k 6 i s a n
the subject, much less among a majority. neuroanatomy.
illustration with this caption: “Three views
One thing lacking within the diversity is
of the body core, the spine.” This appears
a survey article that summarizes, assesses I. to be a different definition, apparently
and reconciles, to the extent possible, the
Rosemary Feitis edited Ida Rolf Talks About irreconcilable with the intrinsics/extrinsics
various ideas. This essay will attempt to fill
Rolfing and Physical Reality, also providing definition: the core is the spine. But it is
the void by reviewing a number of existing
a glossary. There is a glossary entry under reconcilable with her assertion that “the
writings on the subject. Of particular
“Core/Sleeve - Intrinsics/Extrinsics.” This girdles should be sufficiently free so that
interest is the “core as visceral space” since
heading arouses the expectation that the their actions do not distort the serenity of
it is presently the dominant conception of
entry will convey Rolf ’s own thinking on the core.”
the core in our curriculum.
the subject. “Core” and “Sleeve,” though One of the persistent themes of inquiry into
What is the validity of conceiving the core they stand at the head of the entry, are not the core is whether or not it is to be equated
as visceral space? What relationship does defined specifically; one must then assume with the “Line”. For instance, Schultz,
Rolf ’s original formulation have to “the that they are identical with “Intrinsics” and in 1988, does equate them. According
core as visceral space”? These two questions “Extrinsics.” “Intrinsics” and “Extrinsics,” to Schultz, Rolf does not appear to have
are very closely related; since if we are not however, are not precisely distinguished, as expressed herself either in detail or very
talking about the original formulation, it is the definition specifies a continuum, viz.: concretely on the concept of core and sleeve.
difficult to know what we are talking about. “the rule of thumb [i.e., it is not a definition] This tends to be confirmed by Sultan:
This is Sultan’s position: is that tissue nearer the bone is intrinsic;
tissue closer to the surface is extrinsic.”2 She was looking for a way to describe
I don’t think we really have to look
that something that happens to people
any far ther than Ida Rolf ’s original “Nearer to the bone” does indeed seem at when they get “Rolfed,” that emergent
formulation to see what it is we are first to be a useful “rule of thumb” [sic!], quality....her description of the core
referring to when we’re talking about if an imprecise one; but it is a phrase that was as an energetic event, and the
core.1 itself conceals difficulties. Most muscles sleeve referred to the flesh in general,
Indeed, if we can determine what she attach to bones on either end of their that which was affected by gravity.7
meant, it would seem absolutely necessary span. Does this mean that their bellies
are more extrinsic than their tendons? Or Schultz’ brief article from 1988, on the
to do as he suggests, an obligation less to
that a skeletal muscle, attaching to bone, contrary, presents a quite simple and clear
tradition or to the founder’s memory than
is more intrinsic than the stomach, which definition for the core, identifying it with
to intellectual probity. She, apparently, was
does not? In this scheme, is the skeleton the central axis:
the originator of the concept.
the anatomical core? This does not seem The core is a flexible line and the
This essay will evaluate the range of to be the implication. By calling it a “rule sleeve is (are) the obliques moving
conceptions of the core (its complement, of thumb” she seems to acknowledge the around it.8
32 www.rolf.org Structural Integration / June 2008
 Thoughts on “Core”
In a later book, The Endless Web (1996), others are naturally intriguing. It would incompatible. The problem, finally, appears
Feitis and her co-author Schultz present a be very exciting, in this connection, to be to be unresolvable.
different concept of core at greater length able to distinguish a physical or objective
Maitland offers an additional “objective”
and with appropriate discretion: core that also can be distinguished in
definition of “core and sur face,” one
other dimensions of human existence. One
With some caution, we use the that is quite incompatible with his first
might then theorize that the condition
ambiguous word “core” for the body’s definition:
of the physical core also gives clues as to
central axis...there is no structural
the condition of the psychological and Another way to objectify the core
correlate for this core.9
ontological being of the human being, and and surface is to understand it [he is
But despite having “no struc tural perhaps vice versa. It might be possible actually only talking about the core
correlate”… to integrate work on the motility of the here] as the space bounded by the
spleen, for instance, into a course in anger pelvis, abdominal myofasciae, rib
The concept of a core includes both
management!13 cage, and jaw. This internal space
[the] spine (with head, sacrum, and
extends from the pelvic floor to the
coccyx) and the viscera.10 M a i t l a n d i d e n t i f i e s t w o “o b j e c t i v e”
palate or nasopharynx. The bony and
conceptions in his glossar y; the first,
It also is seen to perform a fundamental myofascial structures that surround the
however, seems, as Feitis and Schultz and
functional role, although it has, again, “no core space constitute the surface...16
Feitis did, to amalgamate two separate
structural correlate”:
and unreconciled conceptions of core. The The real problem here is the idea that it is
The balanced diagonals of the limbs problem is essentially the same as that in possible to have two completely different
function best in combination with the Feitis: and incompatible objective definitions
free spring action of the core.11 of the core. Is it “the intrinsic myofascial
According to Dr. Rolf, one way to draw
structures,” or is it the spine, or is it the
The definition offered here is ambivalent. the distinction is to understand the
visceral space? If it can be all three, how
On the one hand, the core is the central intrinsic myofascial structures as core
can we possibly be talking about the same
axis with no structural correlates; on the structures and the extrinsic myofascial
thing? Perhaps it is reasonable to present
other hand, it is the spine (including the structures as sur face structures...
three possibilities, but not to suggest that all
head) and the viscera. Note that Schultz’ one of her favorite indicators of
can be true; otherwise, it is a matter of three
earlier idea of the sleeve consisting of this economy of function was the
different things, which should then have
mobile “obliques” is preserved in the later appearance of the spine (core) moving
three different names. And the question
“balanced diagonals of the limbs”; and, in in free independence from the pelvic
then arises: three possibilities of what,
fact, the definition in The Endless Web is an and shoulder girdles (surface).14
exactly? For it is not clear what sense it
amalgam of Schultz’ definition from his
The first difficulty is that “intrinsic” is not makes to talk about a core and a surface. In
previous article of 1988 and one of Feitis’
distinguished with respect to “extrinsic.” Maitland’s discussion of core and surface,
previous definitions (the one that equated
Are some myofascial structures “intrinsic” the abstract concept core has been reified
core with spine). Gone here is the (only
and others “extrinsic”? That is, are discrete into something, or rather into various
implicit) equation of core and sleeve with
structures either one or the other? If so, things; it doesn’t need justification. But it
intrinsic and extrinsic tissues. Schultz and
this is not specified. Or does “intrinsic” is not at all obvious from his discussion
Feitis have also added the viscera, included
signify “deeper,” not indicating structures that there even is such a thing; as we shall
because they surround the vertical axis.12
themselves but a relative, not absolute, see, not everyone agrees that there is an
Note that they do not mention, much less location? It does for Feitis, although anatomical core. Surely the argument ought
attempt to define, the sleeve by name; she says that “...tissue nearer the bone to go from the observed and specific to the
presumably, it is everything else. But the is intrinsic, tissue closer to the surface is abstract and general, and not the other way
apparent connection noted with the previous extrinsic,” 15 while Maitland refers only to around. The abstraction “core and surface”
article of Schultz’ between “obliques” and myofascial structures. should be justified by observation. It is
“diagonals of the limbs” suggests that unreasonable for it to start off as a premise
Most likely it is the second meaning that
what we are really talking about here is the and then go looking for an observable
is intended, as Maitland attributes it, as
fundamental opposition between axial and correlate to it.
Feitis does, to Rolf. But if the distinction
appendicular skeletons.
is a relative one – like the anatomist’s To add further to the ambiguity, Maitland
Maitland’s concept of core is similarly cranial/caudal, a bi-polar continuum – then adds a fourth definition in the body of his
ambivalent, sharing several features in how is it possible for the core to move “in text, less anatomically precise but definitely
incomplete agreement with Feitis (i.e., in free independence from the...(surface)”? locating the core in the physical body:
Rolf 1978), and with Schultz and Feitis. At what point on the continuum is this
Yo u c a n v i s u a l i z e yo u r c o re a s
Maitland discusses what he refers to as independence to be leveraged? In Maitland’s
extending through the center of your
objective, subjective, psychological, and schema, a clear distinction is assumed; yet
body from the crown of your head,
phenomenological taxonomies of the the possibility of one is negated. And, like
down slightly in front of your spine,
core/surface distinction (apparently alone Feitis, his definition has to do both with
through the insides of your legs, and
among commentators, he prefers “surface” intrinsics/extrinsics and with the spine/
emerging just in front of your heels on
to “sleeve”). We shall concern ourselves girdles; the two aspects of the definition
the soles of your feet.17
with the “objective” ones, although the combine uncomfortably and appear to be

Structural Integration / June 2008 www.rolf.org 33

 Thoughts on “Core”
And now “core” becomes “Line” again! seems a reasonable hypothesis; researching Of exceptional interest is Deckebach’s
this kind of question might be a very good assertion of the precedence of core over
“You can visualize your core”; “Core...can
way to respond to Flury’s critique: sleeve:
be used objectively”; 18 “The core can be
objectified and described anatomically.” 19 I haven’t found a question that could The unspoken premise we have been
Yes, but why should it be objectified and be answered by defining a concept holding is that the sleeve determines
described one way rather than another? It of core...why should I build a theory the form of the structure...In my work
is not enough saying that it can be one thing when there is no question?25 I have changed this premise from
or another; for what reason is it one or the the idea that the sleeve determines
If there are two divisions in the human
other? If it is one thing, then the other things the shape of the core to the premise
body, it would be reasonable to expect
should be called something else. that the core contents are shaping the
manipulation to have more power ful
sleeve.29
Maitland’s discussion is most useful when intradivisional than interdivisional effects.
he refers to his clinical experience, such as If core and sleeve can be sufficiently It appears to be unusual, at least among
the following suggestive observations: defined that predictions can be made as to published commentators, to assert that
intradivisional, relative to interdivisional the core has precedence over the sleeve.
Manipulating certain key myofascial
effects, then there would be a question, Deckebach does not claim that most Rolfers
structures...often visibly opens up,
in Flury’s sense, worth building a theory give the sleeve precedence in their work,
lengthens, and actually increases
around. The “concept of core” could then except, as he puts it, “unconsciously.” 30
internal spaces in the body. What
have some predictive power. It would be a Perhaps Rolf’s assertion that her method
Rolfers recognize and clients feel as
theory of core – not a model but something works from the “outside in” (using the
core length and core function happen
you could build models from. metaphor of an onion, with its many layers)
when these spaces visibly open up,
is responsible for this.
lengthen, and increase in volume...20 Deckebach has proposed yet another
anatomical definition of core and sleeve: Schwind asserts the contrary: that “because
He points out that it is important to have
of the tradition of our profession, we
a concept of core for this reason; 21 but Core – the pleural membrane of
say that the inside is more important
as the concept has not been adequately the thorax and its contents, and the
than the outside.” 31 None of the other
defined, or even isolated, the acuteness peritoneal membrane of the abdomen,
sources analyzed here makes a claim as to
of his observation is blunted. This lack of along with its contents.26
precedence, however. There does indeed
precision is more unfortunate as he becomes
This is quite concrete. He fur ther appear to be less interest in discussing the
more specific (and more interesting):
distinguishes an “abdominal core,” which sleeve (and consequently the relationship
Rolfing the myofasciae on the inside is defined namely as the second half of the between core and sleeve); and that, perhaps,
of the thighs (e.g., the adductors) and above definition. This definition is different is indicative of a lower esteem for its
pelvic floor often will lengthen and from one of Maitland’s definitions – his importance.
increase the core space of the whole “core as visceral space” definition – in not
Schwind has addressed the core/sleeve
torso.22 extending upward to the nasopharynx;
problem at the greatest length of any of the
and in not extending downward to the
Presumably, in this instance, he is referring published discussions. 32 His discussion is
pelvic floor.
to a “core as visceral space” definition – or further augmented by his oral presentation
is it “core as Line”? His observation about The sleeve is also included and defined in in a symposium on core and sleeve.33 Both
the adductors is especially interesting in Deckebach’s scheme: are valuable for their critical (and self-
light of yet another concept of core that he critical) attitude. However, they provide no
Sleeve – everything outside of the
mentions (though without reference): unequivocal statement of what the core is
pleural and peritoneal membranes.27
in anatomical terms, certainly not what its
Other models add [that is, to the
This leaves us essentially with a definition parameters might be. On the contrary, he
“pelvic floor to nasopharynx” model]
for “sleeve” that means, “everything that doubts that it is possible to formulate an
the space between the legs which
is not core.” anatomical definition of “core”:
extends from the pelvic floor down
to and emerging just in front of the D e c k e b a c h p o i nt s to a n i nte re s t i n g The anatomical definition of the
heels on the bottom of the feet. These phenomenon, presumably observed in his core has no chance of giving any
models also insist that the core must practice, which might be of some value in explanation of why one anatomical
also extend up past the roof of the distinguishing an anatomical core from its unit of the body should belong to
mouth to the top of the head.23 sleeve: the core and why another should not
belong to it. It is totally arbitrary.34
This is perhaps at least partly justified by his As the connective tissue in the sleeve
observation about adductor manipulation24 tends to migrate to and contract H is critique of the possibilit y of an
(partly – does the effect he describes extend around bony attachments, likewise, anatomical definition is based on an
downward as well as upward? He doesn’t in the core, the connective tissue of the interesting analysis; he thinks that the core
say). Wouldn’t we expect the various mesenteries migrates to and contracts must be a collection of
regions of the core to be more sensitive to around the organs it positions. This is
...the different elements of the body
manipulation of another part of the core what causes organs to feel harder in
which are most significant for the
than to manipulation of the sleeve? This older bodies.28

34 www.rolf.org Structural Integration / June 2008

 Thoughts on “Core”
maintenance of the struc ture in one respect, this seems, in fact, to resemble thus also the division between the primarily
time.35 Schwind’s own view: tonic extensors and the primarily phasic
flexors.
This, clearly, is the position of Deckebach It’s a symbol, it is a poetic definition
who (in addition to asserting the primacy of course, not very scientific, it’s a The evolutionary development of pelvic
of the core over the sleeve) has an answer symbol for the integrity of the human and pectoral girdles with extremities
for what elements those are. Presumably, organism.40 introduced complications into this scheme
he would prefer a term like “the structures” of motor neurological architecture, but
According to Schwind, core is “an almost
to Schwind’s unintegrated-sounding “the the bi-ramic logic of the ancestral “idea”
metaphysical term.” 41 Indeed, in this
different elements”). But Schwind denies persisted:
conception, the “emergence” that Sultan
the possibility:
speaks of is a func tion of struc tural Pectoral and pelvic anatomy evolved
...there is no reason to say, for example, integration, of balance not between core much later than the axial system, so
“the spine is the core” or “the viscera and sleeve, but among all the “elements” of some of the segmental axial nerves
are the core.” Logically, there is the body. For Schwind, “core” is effectively are extended and borrowed. Since
absolutely no reason to do that.36 equivalent to “integration.” For him “core” the appendages are outgrowths of the
should probably be called something else, ventral body wall, the appendages
This reasoning, however, does not seem
because that word implies a spatial location; are served by ventral branches of the
sufficient; surely the issue is not a logical
whereas, for him, the word means that a spinal nerves. These ventral branches
but rather an empirical one. It appears that
higher level of coherence has been achieved. also divide into dorsal and ventral
Schwind simply has a different presumption
This can be compared, of course, to Sultan’s divisions.45
of what the core should be than other
idea of core as “that emergent quality”.
commentators. There might be a good Note that the limbs also have upper, dorsal
reason to say that the spine is the core; for surfaces and lower, ventral surfaces.46
instance, that it is the structure around which II.
It should also be noted that our phylogenetic
the ancient chordate prototype is organized, Jon Zahourek has analyzed human “anatomical position” is not only on all
while the pelvic and pectoral girdles are anatomical organization in light of vertebrate fours but also with external rotation of
much less ancient and are thus graftings morphological and neuroanatomical data the limbs. This means that the origin of
to a pre-existing trunk. If a Rolfer is able with very interesting results. In evolutionary sartorius is presented on the dorsal surface
to observe that phenomenon that Sultan terms, our biological line of descent has of the body and is part of the group of
calls “...that something that happens...that only recently abandoned quadrupedal extensors.47
emergent quality,”37what is observable must locomotion. Zahourek points out that our
have a physical dimension. Deckebach, for ancestral division between dorsal and Data from fetal and early childhood
example, claims from the experience of his ventral is actually, in evolutionary terms, a development provide an interesting
practice to have found the primacy of the division between top and bottom: confirmation of the fundamental bifurcation
pleural and peritoneal membranes and of dorsal from ventral:
their contents “for the maintenance of the Divide both halves [i.e., left and right]
into upper and lower zones: ventral, The sequence in which the head
structure in time.” Nevertheless, Schwind
for the lower compartment occupied develops ahead of the tail and the back
appears to backtrack in his oral presentation
by the guts, and an upper, dorsal ahead of the belly is maintained, as far
of two years later:
zone of musculoskeletal array – quite as we can tell, after birth...at birth, the
...because of course, the space that the different ideas.42 most developed pelvic musculature
viscera take up seems to be one of the is in the back. The gluteus maximus
most significant components for a long This might seem at first glance to be, if not an muscle is very well developed. The
term development of the shape of the arbitrary distinction, at most a convenient erector spinae...are strong, while the
whole of the human organism.38 one; but the division exists in the nervous belly is less so.48
system and it is there that the significance
If this is not a direct contradiction, Schwind of the distinction begins to emerge: Furthermore, the adductors of the thigh
does not explain why not; he even uses are “even less strong.” 49 Of course the
almost exactly the same expression he Muscle activity in each segment is adduc tors are “ventral” in the sense
used previously in denying the possibility served by a left and a right pair of mentioned by Zahourek – that is, they are
of isolating the nerves from the brain or spinal cord, adjacent to the inside or “lower” surface
each of which branches into two of the limbs. “Flexion...is any movement
...different elements of the body which branches (rami). One branch serves that brings the ventral surfaces toward one
are most significant for the maintenance ventral muscle; the other branch, another,”50 as adductors do in our ancestral
of the structure in time.39 dorsal.43 quadrupedal posture.
But what is more fundamental is the As Schleip puts it, the extensors are It is a case of “ontogeny recapitulating
unreconsidered assumption that the core “innervated from a dorsal primary ramus phylogeny”: the infant can acquire bipedal
must necessarily be more important than or the dorsal branches of the plexi,” while locomotion and erect posture only after
the sleeve. That one or the other may the flexors are “innervated from the ventral passing through quadrupedalism into a
be more important is not the only set of branches of the plexi.”44 phase of “apprenticeship” (Feldenkrais’
alternatives. Why could the importance not
The division between dorsal and ventral is term) in bipedalism. It might be reasonably
lie in a balance between core and sleeve? In

Structural Integration / June 2008 www.rolf.org 35

 Thoughts on “Core”
asserted, as Rolf did more than once, being equivalent to the ventral division that the viscera are automatically more
that man as a species is in an epoch of of the human anatomy and the sleeve to protected merely by virtue of the fact that
apprenticeship in bipedalism. The (ventral) the dorsal division? Developmental and the quadruped’s extensor side is on the
flexors develop more slowly than the neuroanatomical data already divide the surface, exposed to the uncertainties of the
(dorsal) extensors. Oddly, it is ordinarily the body into two divisions along these lines. world, while its flexor side is protected by
flexors that dominate in the adult, despite the earth on the underside – the flexor side
The importance of flexor/extensor balance
developing after the extensors is, effectively, intrinsic. What Feldenkrais
was fundamental for Rolf:
calls “the body pattern of anxiety” 62 is a
A human being is evolving as an erect
You must remember that in your return not only to a fetal pattern, but also to
animal. How erect he’s going to be
appreciation of a body what you are the primordial pattern of our evolutionary
as an individual will depend on the
looking at is the relationship between ancestors (in effect recapitulating phylogeny
degree of balance between his flexors
flexors and extensors.54 in reverse). The physical response to fear is
and extensors. If our description of
a return not only to the womb but to the
evolution is accurate, then we have ...in flexion extensors extend when
evolutionary trunk.
slowly come up to the place where flexors flex. This is something that
we are putting more responsibility doesn’t happen in an unbalanced The erect posture that distinguishes
on extensors and trying to take away body.55 our species serves to obscure one of the
responsibility from flexors.51 fundamental spatial distinctions of our
There is also a physiological distinction
evolutionary patrimony: dorsal equals
The development of the fetus between flexors and extensors in general,
outside, and ventral equals inside. The
establishes the pattern of the later as extensors normally contain more red
quadruped’s ventral sur face faces the
development of the body; it’s a pattern fibers than flexors do. 56 The distinction
earth, affording the contents of the visceral
moving from habitual flexion toward has functional dimensions as well as
space a measure of protection. The “soft
balance between flexion and extension. structural:
underbelly” is proverbial, signifying the
Obviously, we will do well to get
The first reaction to the frightening vulnerability of the ventral surface.
strength and life and vital quality into
stimulus is a violent contraction of
extensors.52 From this perspective, erect posture looks
all the flexor muscles, especially
as though it should be evolutionary folly:
And there appears to be an additional of the abdominal region, a halt in
not only is speed sacrificed, with only two
complication – or really many interrelated breathing, soon followed by a whole
limbs available for locomotion, but the
complications – added to this picture by the series of vasomotor disturbances such
organism’s vulnerable parts are extended
existence of what Rolf calls the “hypererect” as accelerated pulse, sweating, to
up into vertical space where they are
type of body or, in general, what is now micturition and defaecation.57
exposed. Clearly these are not the only
referred to as the “external” type in which
Feldenkrais “saw that negative emotion relevant factors in our troubled evolution.
extensors are dominant.
strengthens flexors.”58 To look at it another way, the structure of
Zahourek’s presentation includes a pair of the human being is indeed quite a “different
People go to flexion for emotional
evocative illustrations, both representing idea” in Zahourek’s phrase.
security. They curl up for protection...
the body, in profile, divided front to back,
immature behavior, negative emotions Human posture, furthermore, seems to call
in two different ways. The first is with a
demand flexion and are expressed for social and psychological innovations
vertical line extending from the crown of
through flexion.59 simply because of the fact that, in standing
the head through the hip joint to the soles
face to face, we also stand belly to belly
of the feet at a point just in front of the ...the chronaxies of the flexors are (core to core?). The degree of intimacy that
heels; the second illustration represents in general lower than those of the this implies is unprecedented among our
the division separating the ancestral dorsal extensors, and they contract first.60 mammalian relatives, even our closest ones.
from ventral.53 It is especially interesting to
Feldenkrais chooses an appropriate moment Jane Goodall once made a film detailing
note that, in the head, this division is just
to speculate and, in doing so, points to a chimpanzee sexual behavior. While to
above the roof of the mouth, recalling one
fundamental distinction in our ancestral watch it is to recognize one’s own species in
of the “models” of Maitland.
morphology: many things, it is also to be astonished, even
The par ticular slowness of the thigh shocked, at the absence of those things that
...limbs are thus drawn nearer to the matter most in sexuality to most humans:
adductors to develop in utero (and also in
body in front of the soft, unprotected depth of involvement and intimacy, and
early infancy, as Schultz and Feitis note)
parts – the testicles, the throat, and the intensity of physiological response and
associates them with the flexors in the
the viscera. This attitude gives the orgasm.
torso. This is consistent, not surprisingly,
best protection possible and instills a
with the ancestral quadrupedal pattern and
sense of safety. The flexor contractions, The numerous anatomical conceptions of
the architecture of the nervous system, as
when maintained, are instrumental “core and sleeve” reviewed here fall into
noted by Zahourek. We have already cited
in restoring the normal, undisturbed four categories (excluding Schwind’s, the
Maitland’s observation about adductor
state.61 core as “symbol for the integrity of the
manipulation, and his comment that some
organism”). These might be characterized
“models” of the core include the inside of Obviously any quadruped has a profoundly as follows: 1) core as line; 2) core as
the legs – that is, the ancestral flexors. Can different feature to its structure, as compared axial complex vs. sleeve as appendicular
it be that we may best think of the core as to an erect-standing human being: namely,

36 www.rolf.org Structural Integration / June 2008

 Thoughts on “Core”
complex; 3) core as intrinsics vs. sleeve as III. necessary one? It was Rolf who coined the
extrinsics; 4) core as visceral space. expression “core and sleeve”; what sense
The intrinsics/extrinsics conception of does it make to use her coinage to denote
Each of the four prevalent conceptions core is not apparently being promoted a different concept? The “core as visceral
represents one of Rolf ’s basic concepts much nowadays, though it still receives space” idea should be given another name
(with the possible exception of the last one) acknowledgment. Nevertheless, it might – not “core.” This essay has attempted
viz.: 1) a man is a something built around a have been Rolf ’s original conception of to identify it with the widely recognized
line; 2) independence of appendicular from core and sleeve: flexor/extensor classification. Rolf herself
axial; 3) independence of intrinsics from
If the head is too far forward, rotation saw this as a primary system of orientation
extrinsics; 4) balance between flexors and
is done by the extrinsics because the for her work, but it is a classification that
extensors. None of the writers reviewed is
intrinsics then lack span and can’t is clearly distinct from her “core/sleeve as
in complete agreement with any other.
function, but to the extent that this intrinsic/extrinsic” idea.
Unfortunately the present essay has not happens, the normal patterning of Both Cottingham66 and Silverman, et al.,67
joined with any one of these writers; it adds the body is destroyed. The balanced have done research for which different
yet another theory to the list. (One other core-and-sleeve pattern of the body core/sleeve relationships have been
aspect of the confusion surrounding core gets lost.63 identified on an intrinsic/extrinsic basis.
and sleeve is the variety of ways that the
Additionally, and most important of Unfor tunately, their sample sizes are
ideas are framed; they are variously called
all in humans – systems which are small and they do not provide precise
models, or conceptions, or definitions, or
vertically organized and move in m e t h o d o l o g y fo r d e te r m i n i n g t h e i r
theories. There are big differences among
space – there is the intrinsic-extrinsic distinctions. Never theless, it appears
these terms, however.)
symmetry which is concerned with the possible to develop such a methodology,
On the other hand, the present theory has relations between deep and superficial as Rolf hoped. Cottingham’s illustrations
an advantage over the previous ones. It myofascial structures in the body.64 do seem in some way to illustrate the
embraces, as it were, the “core as visceral categories he has put them in; even though
space” theory, while it is also closely allied We have used intrinsic and its correlate, the system of classification is imprecise, it is
with a distinction – the dorsal/ventral extrinsic, to denote, respectively, also the case that his distinctions are visible.
division – that is already well recognized muscular elements that are invested Unfortunately, the work of these researchers
by mainstream biologists. Therefore, it in the deepest fascial layers of the has been neither duplicated nor developed.
both explains phenomena that Rolfers have body (intrinsics), and their paired It, like the elecromyographic studies of
observed and also puts them in the context antagonists (or cooperators), the D r. H u n t , r e m a i n s a n i n t r i g u i n g
of what is already accepted. It also puts the extrinsics, which are more superficial, suggestion.
“core as visceral space” theory into an easy occupy greater volume, and are more
directly and obviously subject to the It would be very helpful to be able to say
relationship with one of Rolf’s fundamental
plastic changes of the integrative whether a given myofascial structure is
concepts: the balance between flexors
technique. [A basis for Deckebach’s intrinsic or extrinsic, absolutely and not
and extensors. Most importantly, it poses
claim that traditionally Rolfers have relatively, or to have some other precise way
“questions,” in Flury’s sense, that make it
put more emphasis on the sleeve.] of distinguishing one from another. Then
a necessary theory.
it would make sense to speak casually of a
It is incompatible with the other three We have found it both convenient core and a sleeve. It might take some long
definitions/theories/models, however. and logical to use this nomenclature time for the interest in and the recognition
Incidentally, Maitland’s contention (or in describing what is a functional of the value of the work that would be
rather, that of his unnamed sources) that rather than a descriptive parameter. necessary to clarify this distinction to be
the core as visceral space reaching down Relatively little organized work has aroused in the scientific community, but
the inside of the legs must also reach into been done mapping the unexplored that is no justification to continually be
the cranium is not identical with the dorsal/ territory of fascial anatomy. Time and inventing new interpretations for the same
ventral model presented here; though the research in the future will certainly terms. Only confusion can come from such
adductors are ventral, the cranium is in define these terms more clearly as inventions.
the dorsal half of the ancestral model (the scientific attention in the biological
field focuses on the dynamic rather Unfortunately, Rolf herself seems to be
pharynx, however, being ventral).
than the static aspects of humans.65 responsible for confusion on this issue:
“That emergent quality” could be due to
This last paragraph is especially striking. The spine is the connecting rod of
“giving more responsibility to extensors”; to
It is clear that Rolf saw the difficulties the body, a segmented armature
balancing flexors and extensors; to relieving
in the lack of precision in distinguishing resting in the pelvis. Its two polar
the man of his “body pattern of anxiety”; to
intrinsics from extrinsics. Furthermore, terminals, embodied in pelvis and
freeing the viscera from constriction; to the
her wording seems to imply that she head, make the spine a vital core [!]
advantage of their essential functions; or to
is thinking of discrete structures; her that integrates the human with his
a combination of all of these; or, indeed, to
expectation, therefore, was that eventually gravity environment.68
other additional factors.
each structure could be put into one or the In order to fit the smaller core [!]
other category. of the cervical structure into the
Isn’t this concept the primary and only larger overlying sleeve [!] of shoulder

Structural Integration / June 2008 www.rolf.org 37

 Thoughts on “Core”
girdle and ribcage, a structural “gap” Notes 30. Ibid.
between cervical and dorsal sections
1. Michael Salveson, et al., “Core: Structure 31. Peter Schwind, “Preliminar y
of the spine must be bridged.69
and Function.” Rolf Lines, Jan. 1994, p. 27. Considerations for a Theory of Core.” Rolf
It is clear that in these quotations, Rolf is Lines, Fall 1992, p. 17.
thinking of the core/sleeve distinction as 2. Ida P. Rolf, Ida Rolf Talks about Rolfing ®
and Physical Reality, ed. Rosemary Fetis. 32. Ibid.
being equivalent to the axial/appendicular
distinction (the ribs would be included in Rochester, NY: Harper & Row, 1978), pp.
33. Salveson, et al.
the appendicular skeleton, however). It is 211-212.
34. Schwind, p. 17.
not surprising, then, that Feitis’ view, and 3. Ibid., loc. cit. On what basis are we to
later Feitis and Schultz’, appear to be so assess this supposed “probability”? 35. Ibid.
ambivalent; the ambiguity originates with
4. Ibid. 36. Ibid.
Rolf herself. Even the “multiple personality”
of Maitland’s several theories might have 5. Ibid. 37. Salveson, et al., p. 27.
originated in the apparent ambiguity of
Rolf’s talk and scanty written treatment of 6. Ibid., p. 208. 38. Ibid., p. 32.
the subject. Sultan’s assertion that “I don’t 7. Salveson, et al., p. 27. 39. Schwind, p. 17.
think we need to look any farther than
Ida Rolf’s original formulation” 70 now has 8. Louis Schultz, “Thoughts on Core and 40. Salveson, et al., p. 32.
taken on a certain irony. Perhaps we need Sleeve.” Rolf Lines, Jan./Feb. 1988, p. 16.
4 1 . I b i d. , p. 3 1 . W h a t d o e s “a l m o s t
not look any further; but what was her 9. Louis Schultz and Rosemar y Feitis, metaphysical” mean?
original formulation? D.O., The Endless Web. Berkeley, CA: North
42. Jon Zahourek, Myologik Atlas Series,
Perhaps for her the concept did not deserve Atlantic Books, 1996, p. 36.
vol. 1. Loveland, CO: Zahourek Systems,
the status of a theory or even to be associated 10. Ibid. Inc., 1996, p. 16. Of course, if this is taken
with something particular. In these two literally, Zahourek is guilty of the so-called
quotations, the core/sleeve metaphor 11. Ibid.
“watchmaker fallacy”; namely, that if there
is accompanied by other metaphors 12. Ibid., p. 37. is an “idea” there must also have been
( “co n n e c t i n g ro d,” “a r m a t u re,” “g a p,” someone to have had the idea – a god, for
“bridge”) in a setting of colorful, imaginative 13. Jeffrey Maitland, Spacious Body : instance. It’s a seductive concept.
language. Perhaps the metaphor of core Explorations in Somatic Ontology. Berkeley,
and sleeve was congenial to her; and she CA: North Atlantic Books, 1995, p. 220. 43. Ibid.
used it, unrigorously, in different contexts 14. Ibid. 44. Robert Schleip, “The Flexor-Extensor
without it always having to signify the same Typology.” Rolf Lines, Nov, 1995, p. 10.
physical objects or relationships, in much 15. Rolf, 1978, p. 211. My emphasis.
the same way as she is using “bridge” here. 45. Zahourek, p. 16.
16. Maitland, p. 220.
With so few examples of her thought on the 46. Ibid., p. 17.
matter before us, it is difficult to know if that 17. Ibid., p. 181.
is a reasonable interpretation or what the 47. Ibid.; see his excellent and evocative
18. Ibid. illustrations. Cf. also Schleip, p. 10.
wisest choice between her two conflicting
uses of the terms might be or, indeed, if it 19. Ibid., p. 60. 48. Schultz and Feitis, p. 23.
is possible to make a choice.
21. Ibid., p. 180. 49. Ibid.
If the quotation having to do with core/
22. Ibid. 50. Zahourek, p. 17.
sleeve as intrinsics/extrinsics (note 63
above) seems more serious, the thinking 23. Ibid. Since when can a model “insist” 51. Rolf, 1978, p. 133; cf. also Rolf 1977.
around the point more highly developed, on something?
and her attention to it more focused, it 52. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
could be because in speaking of intrinsics
53. Zahourek, p. 16.
and extrinsics she was exploring territory in 25. Hubert Ritter, “Optimizing the Animal,
which few if any researchers had been. The an Interview with Hans Flury (part two).” 54. Rolf. 1978, p. 69.
possibility that there might be a boundary Rolf Lines, Winter 1997, p. 7.
55. Ibid., p. 158. Her use of terms is eccentric
not only at the skin (between individual
26. John Deckebach, “The Core’s Role as (as is her use, not incidentally, of the terms
and environment), but one also between the
Causal in Structural Distortion.” Structural “intrinsic” and extrinsic”).
outer myofasciae and the inner, was raised
Integration, Feb. 2003, p. 17.
perhaps originally by her. And perhaps for 56. Moshe Feldenkrais, Body and Mature
the same reason we should call this division 27. Ibid. Behavior. NY: International Universities
the one between core and sleeve and not Press, 1970, p. 21.
any other. In any case, she was without any 28. Ibid. This is interesting news, of
course. 57. Ibid., p. 83.
doubt not talking about the visceral space,
however defined, and we should therefore 29. Ibid. But why has he changed his 58. Rolf, 1978, p. 133.
reject this definition. premise?

38 www.rolf.org Structural Integration / June 2008

 Thoughts on “Core”
59. Ibid., p. 98. Feldenkrais, Moshe. Body and Mature
Behavior. NY: International Universities
60. Feldenkrais, pp. 83-84. Chronaxie:
Press, 1970. (Originally published 1949.)
“The minimum interval of time necessary
to electrically stimulate a muscle or nerve Maitland, Jeffrey. Spacious Body: Explorations
fiber, using twice the minimum current in Somatic Ontology. Berkeley, CA: North
needed to elicit a threshold response.” Atlantic Books, 1995.
61. Ibid., p. 92. Ritter, Hubert. “Optimizing the Animal, an
Interview with Hans Flury (part two).” Rolf
62. Ibid., pp. 83 ff.
Lines, Winter 1997.
63. Rolf, 1978, p. 188.
Rolf , Ida P. Rolfing: The Integration of Human
64. Ida P. Rolf, Rolfing: The Integration o Structures. CA: Dennis-Landman, 1977.
Human Structures. Dennis-Landman, 1977.
Rolf, Ida P. Ida Rolf Talks About Rolfing
p. 290.
and Physical Reality, edited and with an
65. Ibid., p. 120n. Her comment to the effect introduction by Rosemary Feitis. Rochester,
that the extrinsics “are more directly and NY: Harper & Row, 1978.
obviously subject to the plastic changes of
Salveson, Michael; Levine, Peter; Maitland,
the integrative technique” may be what
Jeffrey; Schwind, Peter; Sultan, Jan. “Core:
Deckebach is talking about when he says
Structure and Function: A Symposium.”
that Rolfers give precedence to the sleeve.
Rolf Lines, Jan. 1994.
66. John Cottingham, Healing through Touch:
Schleip, Rober t. “ The Flexor-Extensor
A History and a Review of the Physiological
Typology.” Rolf Lines, Nov. 1995.
Evidence. Boulder, CO: The Rolf Institute of
Structural Integration®, 1985, pp. 155-159. Schultz, Louis R. “Thoughts on Core and
Sleeve.” Rolf Lines, Jan./Feb. 1988.
67. Julian Silverman, et al., “Stress, Stimulus
I ntensit y Control and the Struc tural Schultz, Louis R. and Feitis, Rosemary. The
Integration Technique.” Confinia Psychiatrica, Endless Web. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic
vol. 16, 1973, Books, 1996.
68. Rolf. 1977, p. 175. Schwind, Peter. “Preliminary Considerations
for a Theory of Core.” edited by Aline
69. Ibid., p. 194.
Newton. Rolf Lines, 1992.
70. Cf. note 1. She has also been quoted as
Silverman, Julian; Rappaport, Maurice;
having said that “core is anything you can’t
Hopkins, H. Kenneth; Ellman, George;
do without.” And here she gets very close
H u b b ard, R ichard; B elleza, Teodoro;
to Peter Schwind’s “…different elements
Baldwin, Theodore; Griffin, Ralph; Kling,
of the body which are most significant for
Robert. “Stress, Stimulus Intensity Control,
the maintenance of the structure in time”
and the Structural Integration Technique.”
– except that she seems to be speaking
Confinia Psychiatrica, vol. 16, 1973.
in more general terms than specificaly
structural. Zahourek, Jon. Myologik Atlas Series, vol.
1. Loveland, CO: Zahourek Systems, Inc.
If’n I wanted to get to Pittsburgh,
1996.
I wouldn’t start here.

Bibliography
Deckebach, John. “ The Core’s Role as
Causal in Structural Distortion.” Structural
Integration, Feb. 2003.
Cottingham, John. Healing through Touch:
A History and a Review of the Physiological
Evidence. Boulder, CO: The Rolf Institute,
1985.
Eaton, Theodore H., Jr. Comparative Anatomy
of the Vertebrates, second edition. NY: Harper
and Brothers, 1951.

Structural Integration / June 2008 www.rolf.org 39