Bernard Aucouturier's background was in teaching physical education. His interest in psychomotoric practice started when he became the head of »Centre d'Education Physique Specialisee' in the sixties. This was the time when the first psychomototric concepts were developed by Jean Le Boulch and Pierre Vayer, which were applied and tried out in nurseries and primary schools. Their common thought was that by developing motor skills such as movement co-ordination, an image of your own body, awareness of time and space etc. the development of cognitive skills could be supported. Aucouturier worked on this basis with children who were referred to his centre because of emotional and behavioural problems, motor difficulties, disabilities and learning difficulties.

»At the beginning of our work we believed in the psychomotoric concepts of »deficits of the child« ( catching up on »missed stages« of the child's psychomotoric development ), developed by Le Boulch and Vayer. This concept was mainly normative and rationalistic. Normative in a sense that the child's psychomotoric development was evaluated according to statistical norms … After a certain amount of »deficits« have been located and identified, these deficits are tackled consequently through motoric exercises…« (Aucouturier, Lapierre, 1998, p.18)

In his first book »Les contrastes et la decouverte des notions fondamentals« ( Aucouturier, Lapierre, 1974), Aucouturier presented psychomotoric exercises, through which the child gets in contact with abstract concepts such as size, speed, direction, intensity. He soon recognised the difficulties of the conception of this first psychomotoric intervention. While observing the children doing their exercises, he often felt their resistance, passivity, boredom and lack of interest. He realised that the children consciously or unconsciously felt that these exercises have a second intention - for example to improve learning skills ( eye-hand co-ordination for writing, space-time organisation for reading, maths).

»These secondary aims of school related learning remain present, and the chance for more openness and flexibility is quickly destroyed by traditional pedagogy. The psychomotoric exercises only seemed to be an important part of nursery education if they were controlled by pedagogy. From this moment on systematic learning of a second degree took place again, which is imposed by the teacher with the same frightening pressure« (Aucouturier, Lapierre, 1998, p.18).

Aucouturier noticed, that the child experiences this normative pedagogy as aggressive, involving feelings of insecurity, anxiety and guilt. Therefore the resistance of the child is reinforced.
Aucouturier observations show that certain mechanisms of adaptation are induced through psychomotoric exercises, but they only remain specific and can not be related to learning skills. This is the case even if these exercises had good results in psychomotoric control tests. Aucouturier concluded that the children's difficulties and their physical expression often stem from deeper and more meaningful problems, which can be detected in the child's affective-emotional expression and relational behaviour.

During psychomotoric therapy with »Bruno« ( Aucouturier, Lapierre, 1977), a therapy report published in German in 1982, Aucouturier realised that he would not get hold of Bruno, if he tries to work with him according to his own wishes and aims. If he is trying to encourage Bruno, who is not walking upright, to walk in a co-ordinated manner, if he is trying to encourage Bruno, who does not use language, to speak and if he is trying to encourage Bruno, who is not interested in the material in the psychomotoric room , to act and play , he ignores him and refuses himself. His report about the therapy stated:

»The ›classic‹ view of pedagogy only deals with negative aspects: lack of motor co-ordination, difficulties of keeping balance, muteness etc.- and is focused on reducing these deficits: exercises for co-ordination, static and dynamic balance, talking. This was the way one would have treated Bruno and probably the way we would have dealt with him a few years ago. But experience has taught us that, that this approach of instrumental pedagogy, which is focused on the deficits of the child has only limited success. This has to be analysed further: on one hand this approach only focuses on patterns of behaviour, without modification of deep underlying structures of personality. If those underlying deep structures are too disturbed, a symptomatic re-education yields no success. On the other hand it creates a conscious or unconscious conflict within the child, who will ›defend‹ the symptoms with, which she expresses herself .Therefore, by institutionalising the deficits, they are only increased and structuralised. Moreover the possibility to build an open and trusting relationship with the child, which is a prerequisite for her development, diminishes.«
( Aucouturier, Lapierre, 1982,p.26).

Aucouturier decided that in his intervention he would not only focus on the child's deficits and problems but on the abilities and skills. He tried to learn to understand what the child is doing spontaneously.

»This observation and discovery has led us to discard any form of pedagogy, that focuses only on symptoms, which it tries to remove through more or less flexible exercises. We want to work with the positive aspects of the child. We are only interested in what the child is able to do and not what she is not able to do. Only in this way can the relationship be relaxed, the situation be less dramatic and the child be able to re-discover trust and security. The best way to help the child overcome her difficulties is to let her forget them«
( Aucouturier, Lapierre, 1998, p.20).

Aucouturier's psychomotoric practice is therefore based on the belief, that every human being should be accepted as an individual with an array of skills to be supported individually. The child's individuality with it's own special touches and her unrepeatable history of life is the fundamental principle of Aucouturier's work and is starting point of every psychomotoric intervention. Thoughts of humanistic and psychosomatic psychology are reflected in this.

In the eighties Aucouturier formulated the concept of somatic expression. He described how children are capable of expressing themselves physically by establishing themselves as unique individuals in their environment. Children primarily express themselves using their bodies. They explore and discover the world, all, in relation to their body. In the first few months of life one can observe how each child has individual ways of moving and reacting, individual facial expressions and gestures. These specific and distinctive expressions are connected to their physical, emotional and cognitive experiences. These are to be respected and accepted as vital for the child. (Esser, 1992, p.22)

If the child's physical expression are the primary form of communication then the child's body and its movement must be the central focus for the psychomotoric practice. But it is not only the »body in isolation« which is bound to its neurophysiological development, but rather the body with its affective-emotional traits, which have developed out of physical, emotional and cognitive experiences.

Accepting this knowledge, Aucoutourier focuses his research on the body. The body with it's development, its diverse possibilities of expression, and its somatic conversions. How important is the body in a child's development? How does the child develop an image of her own body? How does the child develop a strong image of her individual physical being, which is such an important step towards developing an identity?

By the end of the seventies, beginning of the eighties Aucouturier turns towards developmental psychology and psychoanalytical concepts to deal with the these questions.

He was strongly influenced by Jean Piaget and Henri Wallon, both developmental psychologists. Piaget describes that in the first few months movement plays a fundamental role in the development of cognitive abilities. Henri Wallon examined the tonic dialogue, a child's pre-linguistic way of communication by using the tonus ( body). This tonic dialogue incorporates the body, its muscular tension, its sensation, its perception and feelings. Wallon describes this first tonic dialog as prerequisite for all forms of communication, especially talking. From Freud Aucouturier gains insight into the concepts of the body as an »engine« for the child's development, the body's part in the development of neurotic and psychotic behaviour and the unconscious. But the most influential impact on Aucouturier had the work by D.W. Winnicott, a child psychoanalyst. He investigated the emotional development of the child in relation to it's immediate environment.

»The fact is that the meaning of ›infant‹ is ›not talking‹. It is helpful to see ›infancy‹ as a phase which is prior to the use of words and symbols. This means that it relates to a phase where the infant is dependent on the mothers care, which is not expressed through words but trough the tuning in of the mother« ( Winnicott, 1962, p.51).

At this time Aucouturier's theory of »manque du corps« ( deficit of the body) evolved, described in detail in my book Beweg-gruende ( Esser, 1992). The theory emphasises the importance of the infants first physical relationship with her mother, father or any other close carer. These first physical relationships determine the »image du corps«, an image and schema of her own body. They also set the tone for the »imaginaire du corps«, the phantasmic images and memories, which the child, and later the adult, remembers in connection to her own body. These images, memories and phantasms, which are related to her own body, are rooted in these first relationships and effect on her whole life.

Aucouturier interprets the child's motoric behaviour as expression of her early affective-emotional experience. Through the body and its movement, the child expresses her joyful and painful experiences of being in the world and of her first relationships. These experience are absorbed by the child's body, and are consequently expressed via the body. These past experiences are always present, and will always influence her being, behaviour, emotions and thoughts into adulthood.

How does the child develop an image of her own body, which is such an important step in the development of her identity?
Aucouturier's answer is: Only those parts of the body that had joyful experiences play a role in the development of the image of the body.( Aucouturier, 1989, lecture in Bonn). He formulates his concept of the body as a unity.

The following is an extract from my article »Von Bruno bis heute« .

These joyful experiences, made through personal encounters, facilitate the child's feeling of unity, making her feel secure and comfortable. This pleasant feeling of unity comes and goes, it is never stable. Pain, for example, can lead to loss of unity- Physical pain caused by illness, accidents etc. and psychological pain caused by absence, separation from or unavailability of a carer.

Especially in the first few months the child reacts with anger, and, above all anxiety, if the slowly evolving feeling of unity is threatened. In this way deeply rooted anxieties, attributable to the first physical relationships, evolve. For example, fear of dissolving ( »agnoisse de dissolution«), anxiety of dispersion ( »agnoisse de dispersion), anxiety (agnoisse de ecorchage), anxiety of dismemberment ( »agnoisse de morcellement du corps«), or anxiety of falling (»agnoisse de chute«), etc.. These anxieties, on the whole, are related to the child's experiences in the first few years: food intake and excretion, how she was she held and carried by her parents, how she was put to bed and taken out, how she was handled in relation to space, how she was dressed and undressed etc.. Aucouturier calls these anxieties »archaic fear of loss of the body«. He is talking about loss of the body because these fears threaten the just newly evolving unity of the body.

Aucouturier assumes that the process - of having experienced a joyful relationship with another person, having then lost this unity, coupled with anxieties and yearning for the original feeling of unity- is the essential motivation for the development of symbolisation and representation: The child is searching for a joyful unity to reduce her anxiety. She is doing this by representing her unity. One could also say she is starting to hallucinate or phantasise about the joyful unity with the other person. Therefore the child is creating a phantasmic inner self. However, the child only wants to recreate her memories if she experienced the previous unity as joyful. The child only strives for an answer if she experienced absence of it. Factors that cause the dynamic of representation are anxiety, loss and the urge to find the lost unity.

For example: a child is hungry and starts crying, but nobody reacts. The child places an object in her mouth and sucks it. On one hand this behaviour restores her unity, well-being and relaxation. On the other hand the child re-actualises the body zone, in this case the mouth, in relation to an external object, the mother. By sucking the child also re-discovers the memory of the other person, especially the body of the other person. Aucouturier concludes: Action involves two, the object and the subject!

In the last few years Aucouturier has pursued exactly this thought: the presence of another person during any behaviour. Nowadays he is talking about the concept of action and transformation. Action is defined by the effect it has on the inner self and the immediate environment. Through her actions she can create her inner and outer world.
How do actions give rise to change in self, how does »changing« influence the immediate environment and in turn changes it?

I we consider a crying infant : The mother assumes that the baby is crying because of hunger and feeds her. She gratifies the child's physiological needs. The child is fed and the hunger gone. The child's emotions and tonus was transformed on a sensorimotor level: she experiences a sensorimotor, tonic and psychological change (internal transformation). But at the same time also the mother changes. She has understood the needs of the child and now relaxes. Her feelings and psyche towards the child have been altered ( external transformation). Action is therefore a dialectical process, a reciprocal transformation of the inner and outer world, an inter-action: the infants transformation depends on the transformation of the mother and vice versa!
In the most recent psychoanalytic research about the infancy age, this reciprocal process of transformation within the communication of mother and child, has been thoroughly examined by Daniel Stern.

Aucouturier says that something can only be changed or transformed, if it had affective attributes, otherwise the dynamic to act is lost. The basis, for allowing a mutual transformation without much resistance, is a joyful relationship, in which the pleasure of the mutual transformation is predominate. The other person has to be available, yet stable. The child has to experience that the other person is changeable, but still stable and the same person -just as the child is changeable but nevertheless develops an own identity.

In everyday interaction, of mother and child or therapist and child, this aspect of mutuality is often not considered enough. The external world for the infant is represented by the parents. It is questionable, if this external world is willing to be available and adaptable to the child's needs. Furthermore, are the parents able to be transformed by the relationship with their child or is rather the child being adapted to their own needs and demands. If the immediate environment of the child is not willing to undergo transformation, the child's ability to act is greatly reduced. This inability to act is manifested in superficial movement, because the prerequisite for action is a reciprocal and transformative environment.

Aucouturier believes that this is exactly the problem of hypermotor children ( he is specifically talking about hypermotor instead of hyperactive children! Action requires interaction of two people): these children only show superficial movement, without taking control. They move around without the urge to connect with another person. They often fear change and resist heavily against any change. Therefore they also find it difficult to make changes in their immediate environment.

Aucouturier thinks that these children have neither experienced joy and pleasure, nor a reciprocal transformation within a relationship. Perhaps the external object was absent in early infancy because of illness or lack of interest in the child. Also constitutional factors can prevent the external object being internalised. These children are often very isolated and lonely and are yearning for strong affective relationships ( for example with the therapist, who they equally adore and try to destroy). They have not been able to learn that their action has a transformative effect on their inner and outer world. This , though, is an essential prerequisite for thinking. One is more likely to find difficulties in the development of cognitive abilities, with children who have been impeded in their ability to move and have not learnt to be active on their own.
But how are action and thought related? How does the child reach mental representation? How does she re-actualise the schema of action?

Aucouturier gives an example which can frequently be observed in early infancy: A one-year old child is playing with her mother. The mother is building a tower out of building bricks. After a short while the child knocks the tower over. The bricks tumble down and the mother builds a new tower which the child knocks down again. It would be a mistake to tell the child off for knocking down the towers. Instead the mother rebuilds the tower again and again because she knows that her child enjoys destroying the tower. Together they share the experience of building and destroying, of appearing and disappearing.
But the mother- for whatever reasons- will not always be present and will not always be available to share this enjoyable dynamic interaction with the child. But once the child has experienced this, she will be able to build the tower herself. Then she is not only going to find herself but also her mother in the tower: in building a tower I experience our mutual experience, I let both, me and you re-emerge.
Action always also involves somebody else.

Therefore the child's action is seen as a representation of the other person, a representation of the action with another person, which has been deeply inscribed into the child's unconsciousness.

Swinging, spinning, falling, destroying and creating, filling and emptying, hiding and emerging, climbing and jumping, balance and imbalance, separating and finding ( hide and seek), and later games of devouring, for language development ( wolf, crocodile games), etc. are actions, which are symbolical expressions of past experiences.
Connected to these actions are emotions and phantasms, which spring from the first physical relationships and which re-actualise the experiences of pre- peri and postnatal lifetime. These archaic emotions and phantasms are expressed through the body. They are representations of primary experiences with others. For example, when children are playing hide and seek and are disappearing and appearing again, the game is about ensuring themselves that there is stability despite temporary separation. Even if the mother ( carer) can not always be there, there will be a re-union after the separation. The child is hiding, in order to be looked for. The child wants the evidence, that she is that important for the other person, that s/he is looking for her: if you are looking for me, I am important to you, if I am important to you , you love me…
Swinging, spinning, climbing, falling, and games including balance and imbalance, are related to the child's unconscious memories. Memories of how they were held and carried, how secure or insecure they felt, etc..

As previously explained the child is repeating these actions to find and represent the joyful unity, which it had with the other person or to avoid being confronted with the connected anxiety.
By engaging in those games the child can find unity again, an unity where the other person is present, but where she also experiences herself as independent. Aucouturier sees in this the evidence that the child has developed a representation of herself, which is so consistent that psychological stability is ensured ( »contenant psychique«).

The following example illustrates Aucouturier's thoughts: Games involving falling, letting oneself fall down, with the feelings of joy and fear involved are already played by children aged 15–18 months. In a protected environment, e.g. in a psycho-motoric room, the child can unconsciously play with her anxieties by falling into soft mats or by running fast, stopping and suddenly falling on the floor. During those games the child is not only dealing with her anxieties of physically falling down but also of being let down by someone, to be emotionally left alone.
Repeating those anxieties during play is helping the child to reduce her tensions and anxieties. Therefore Aucouturier calls those tonic-emotional games »games of deep re-insurance«

This game of falling down shows that the child has a feeling of unity; the child has to have an image of her physical self in order to fall down, in other words to let go. This representation of herself makes her physically strong, thus she can detach herself from others, resulting in physical maturity.

The purpose of psychomotoric practice is consequently to give the child the possibility to repeat these play behaviours again and again in an environment which enables the free expression of her history and »her symbolism«. Thus »the psychogenetic development is regularly reproduced« ( Symbolic der Bewegung, 1998, p.26). The psychomotoric practice wants to support the child in her psychological development, by offering a route from body, action and playing to language and thought.

The psychomotoric space is therefore divided into two areas: an area of motoric expression and an area of representation. In the area of motoric expression there is kinds of equipment and material for spinning, swinging, climbing,etc.. Soft play material like foam cubes, balls etc. in different sizes, forms and colours are the main resources in this area. Sensomotoric and symbolic play can be experienced in there.The child can experience her body and relive her fantasies.
The area of representation, on the other hand, deals with abstract aspects: here the child can build, mould, knead and draw pictures. The psychomotoric therapist talks to the child about what she is creating in this area.

Nowadays an important principle is to not just remain on a tonic-emotional level with the child. In order for the child to learn how to unravel her fantasies and to integrate her emotions into mental schemas, it is necessary to move from body movement to language.

»We want the child to actively involve herself through language. She should make use of linguistic skills to make herself understood. By talking about the experiences shared with the other children, she is learning to manage and develop her language skills, meeting the needs for communication and interaction ( Aucouturier/Lapierre,1998, p115).«

Children's, speech used for communication and exchange of ideas, has been extended to the function of keeping distance and the possibility of decentralisation.

This is Jonas 5th psychomotoric session. In the last four sessions he chose to play with play dough. He did not want to knead the play dough himself, but told me what to make: a snake, a boy and a father as he is watching me. Watching people is his reality and what he does in kindergarten. He is four and a half years old, a tall but delicate boy with blond hair and lively eyes. Most of the time he is observing, hiding under the table if demands are made and he cries a lot. He is shy, has no contact with other children, with a pronounced stutter in group situations and he is inhibited in his movement. In the last session we had agreed that we would act out the story of the snake, the boy and the father. Yet the session begins like the previous ones: I have to knead his fantasies to put them into action. After a while he accepts my suggestion to change roles; he is now moulding the play dough and I am watching. In the role of the other he is suddenly very competent, he shows me how to mould the play dough, how he is doing it better than me, how to do it correctly. I experience instructions and rebukes in my observing role. After a short while I remind him of our deal to play the story of the snake, the boy and the father. He agrees. He wants to be the snake and I have to be »the boy or the father« .It is, and will not be quite clear throughout the game, if the boy or the father should be destroyed. My assigned role changes continuously. Jonas, hissing loudly in his role as a snake, starts to chase me. There is a wild chase through the room: up the slide, down the climbing wall, over the foam cubes arranged as steps, through the room, up and down… Already in the first twenty minutes of the session Jonas' inhibition of movement has vanished. His inhibition only occurs during certain behaviour: only when Jonas could catch his prey, when he could catch me, and he would have to do something with his caught prey, he tells me to run away again. As I am slowly getting exhausted, Jonas is getting more energetic. As the symbolism of a snake is not a snugly animal, but a poisonous animal that throttles and devours his prey, I gather that Jonas is dealing with aggression. I start to provoke him physically and show resistance when he tries to catch me. He starts biting me. This physical interaction is opening his emotional gates: he burns me in a fire and I am reduced to silence: »You can't speak anymore! You are dead now!« I pretend to be dead, announcing this to him, and after a while he decides how to proceed: »If you scream I'll put you into a children's home!« »Oh, that would scare me !« he says: »peep, you have screamed! You have to go into a children's home! Come!« His voice is changing drastically: it's not high and »squeaky« and stuttering anymore, but loud, clear and demanding. I answer: »I have never heard you talking like this before!« »He shouts at me and hits me with small pieces of foam cubes: »You! Don't talk!« He scolds me: »There is this stupid, little baby, this stupid, naked baby, that will be hit soon!« He is pointing his fingers at me. During the first part of the session I had the feeling that I was enacting the father who had to be destroyed, whereas in the second half it was the role of the little, humiliated child, that was not allowed to say »peep« and who was laughed at and not taken seriously. I experienced many more insults and verbal abuse in my role, until I tell Jonas that we will continue playing the game next week, but that now we can do some drawing and moulding. He finishes the game by throwing all the material we had used around the room. Then he decides to draw a picture. Jonas draws a boy in a children's home and once he finished he scribbled over it. I summarise: »Oh, if one is crying, if one makes a sound, if one is not yet able to do certain things, one has to go into a children's home. That's not nice!« That is the end of the fifth session. In the following sessions many more scathing comments, remarks, insults and threats are disclosed by Jonas which reduce him to silence and make him unable to act spontaneously. These sessions run according to a pattern which involve killing the aggressor before the child can be himself, and develop his attitude, expression and his identity.

What can the psychomotoric therapist do, to enable a child to learn how to act, create and change with joy and pleasure- all of which are basic prerequisite for life?
First of all she has to be open, available and flexible enough for the child to feel that being active together and with each other is a possibility. Being active together here meands, that each others differences are accepted and appreciated, but each person is and remains an individual. A rule recorded in »Bruno« is always valid: »He (the therapist) is personally taking part; he is having an infra-verbal dialogue, within which, everybody experiences the body of the other (…) . This could be called ›empathic behaviour‹ on a physical and psycho-tonic level. Authenticity, willingness, empathy are basic terms of Rogers psychological theory which re-enforce the purpose of the supportive interaction with a client in a psychomotoric session ( Aucouturier, 1995, p.13).« Or in other words: the unity or representation of oneself can only evolve within a pleasurable relationship with another person. Only if the psychomotoric therapist is willing to be transformed, to be changed is she able to establish a joyful relationship. For this it mainly needs a stable image of the psychomotoric therapist herself, who is not scared of transformation brought about by somebody else, but who experiences and shares this with joy. By doing this, the child is granted a receptive mirror of the joint interaction. I have emphasised the importance of self- awareness and physical experience during training for psychomotoric therapists in my book »Beweg-gruende« ( Esser,1992, p57 ). The psychomotoric therapist is helping the child to recognise her repetitive play behaviour, which is obstructing her development. The therapist can ask the child for solutions to make changes possible. Moreover the therapist can help the child to find solutions and work on these.
It's not the therapist who has the solutions but the child who knows them!

This attitude of the psychomotoric therapist has to be established in the first meeting with the child for observation and remain constant throughout the therapeutic process. If the attitude, that it is not the therapist who knows the solution but the child, is taken seriously, then the attitude towards the child changes drastically. The psychomotoric therapist is proceeding on the assumption that the child is able and competent to find a solution for a change in her behaviour. Such working attitude obviously rules out the classic diagnostic method with children, in which emphasis is on deficits and lack of abilities: because it's sole aim is to tell the child how she has to change!
The psychomotoric theory by Aucuoturier focuses on an interactive observation to get insight into the child's life and present circumstances.

»In my work with children it is essential, not to treat them as patients and assess their needs according to diagnostic criteria…the focus is not on diagnosis but on the attempt to establish an interactive dynamic, in which the child can pluck up the courage to interact with the world and people again… the only important thing is to help the child to believe in herself again; using the support of a sound relationship, in order to learn how to deal with her impairment… ( Esser, 1992, p.65)«

This means that the psychomotoric therapist does not observe and assess the child from a distance, but immediately involves herself in a tonic-emotional interaction with the child; the therapist as a physical person is directly involved. The quality of this developing relationship is the medium through which the child takes the plunge to communicate and build up trust. The way we welcome a child ( l'accueil), we listen ( l'ecoute), we understand ( la comprehension) and how we accompany the child ( l'accompagnement) is decisive, if we want the child to tell us her history, experiences and pain. Only a real and authentic, tonus and emotion based relationship, makes this process possible. Bernhard Aucutourier calls this the »tonic-emotional resonance« between therapist and child.

»The purpose of this interactive observation, which manifests the first encounter between therapist and child, is to listen to the child's individual way of expression and to find a mutual level of communication and verbal interaction. This will help the child to slowly express her needs and anxieties - her motivation to move- on a symbolic level. The interactive observation is the basis and the start of understanding the child's inner experiences and processes «( Bortel, unpublished document on interactive observation, soon to be published in : Praxis der Psychomotorik , August 2001) .

It is not only the relationship that helps the child to express herself but also the stable and consistent environment which gives her a feeling of security. A part of this secure environment is the psychomotoric space, with its divided areas of motoric expression and symbolic representation. Additional security comes from clear communication with parents about how long the sessions will be, how often they will take place, and the length of intervals between the child's attendance at the psychomotoric sessions.
Generally children attend the psychomotoric session about once a week for 45- 60 minutes. Two to three observational sessions are normally planned.
During the first observational session the aim is to establish a relationship between the therapist and the child, whereas the second and third sessions aim to collect information about the deeper meaning of the child's behaviour. How does the child move around in the room? Is she active? Is she able to relate to the therapist? Is the child revealing her anxieties and phantasms? Can she overcome her anxieties or is she overwhelmed by them? How does she express herself through her own body, language and drawings or constructions?

As I have mentioned in »Beweggruende« (Esser, 1992, p.55), the therapist is adressing these questions to get a better picture of the child's individual means of expression. Special attention is directed towards the dynamic of change in these first sessions. Does the child change tonus and emotions and is she flexible in her play behaviour and actions? Or is she fixated on certain games and movements? If no change can be detected, it could be an indication that the child's defence mechanisms are so strong, that individual therapy should be arranged. Therapists should also consider about her own relationship with the child. Can she accept the child? Does she have feelings of rejection or overprotection for the child? Can she deal with the subject matters projected on to her by the child? Has she reacted appropriately to the child's physical and linguistic ways of expression? During interactive observation there is no hierarchical order between therapist and child, on the contrary the therapist is as a person actively involved in the process. As previously explained, only a therapist who is willing to be transformed by the child can facilitate the child's development and changes!

By asking these questions in the first few sessions the therapist hypothesises about the child's history and situation. In conversation with the parents the therapist will communicate her observations. It is important that the therapist is flexible enough to listen to observational reports by parents, carers, teachers, etc. and not only take her own observations as valid. It is important to establish that the view of one party is not »more right« than another, to get a comprehensive and diverse picture of the child. That is why we try to involve as many people, who play a part in the child's education and upbringing as possible.Together a new understanding of the child can be developed, not only focusing on her deficits, difficulties and problems. As Sartre said: »Man constitutes himself through the eyes of the other.« Therefore a healthy relationship focuses on the child's skills, abilities and capabilities!

When lecturing or leading courses I am often asked about the meaning of Aucouturier's psychomotoric practice. I answer these questions by relating to my personal experience, of using these concepts for the last 18 years. I find the approach, gaining access via the body and the motor behaviour to the world of emotions and feelings of the child very child-friendly and effective. Aucouturier's observations of games, played by infants all over the world and the conclusions he draws from his practical work with children, seems to me evidenced and valid time after time. As a therapist I see that the children enjoy coming to psychomotoric sessions and - surprisingly- very quickly open up, display trust and show their real »self «. Then they start creating new and previously unknown experiences, taking challenges and showing different play patterns and ways of communication. They start forming a new personality, with their own weaknesses and capabilities; they start expressing what they are able to do, what they are not, what they like and what they dislike. They express their real »self «. If we define the psychomotoric intervention as an aid to developing to psychological maturity through physical expression, it is successful in that moment when the child or a person learns to accept her individuality, imperfection, and differences.

This is the prime aim of psychomotoric intervention and I am always touched when it works! For that purpose I make myself available as a person, including my body and my emotions. The fact that this does not happen from a hierarchical level is in accordance with my values and beliefs that people only face new challenges if they are in a trusting and equal relationship. Then they start trusting me and my task as a therapist is to say the unspoken and to translate the feelings, anxieties and emotions in connection with these into words. »To face the facts« does not necessarily mean being cured, but it is a first step in that direction. A therapist in the psychomotoric space is needed as a person, to offer new experiences such as reliability, continuity, regard, respect, affection, etc.. That is what I can offer, this is my task: not to tell the child how she has to develop to be accepted and maybe loved, but to help her to accept and love herself with all the facets of her personality. If this succeeds, a positive course of development succeeds, which is existential and not just symptom focused.

What are the limits of this approach? One can be found in the physical and emotional capacity and strength of the therapist. To what extent can I offer myself, my body and my emotions time and again to other people? It is important to be alert and aware of one's own limits and to be careful not to go beyond one's own limits. This is very important because it is impossible to return to a functional way of working, once one has internalised this attitude towards human kind. It is also important to find other people who share these therapeutic beliefs and/or to take regular supervision sessions to be able to deal with the children's experiences.

Another limit is that, in my opinion, this concept can not be judged and evaluated in an objective way. There are no prefabricated and perfect human beings, who can be judged according to objective criteria and be put into fixed categories. I, personally, do not believe that human behaviour can ever be evaluated in an objective manner. Human beings are subjective individuals with their personal peculiarity and own history of life.

Author: © Marion Esser
Translation: Camilla Waldburg

Contact address in the UK:
Camilla Waldburg
45 Brockwell Park Gardens
London
SE24 9BJ
cwaldburg@web.de

• Aucouturier, Bernard, Lapierre, A.: Bruno, Ernst Reinhardt Verlag, Muenchen 1995, 2nd. ed.
• Aucouturier, Bernard, Lapierre, A.: Symbolik der Bewegung, Ernst Reinhard Verlag, Muenchen1998
• The newer concept are taken from lecture notes by Aucouturier, 1997–2000
• Bortel, Dorothee: Die Beobachtung in der Psychomotorischen Praxis Aucouturier, Praxis der Psychomotorik, August, 2001
• Esser, Marion: Beweggruende, Ernst Reinhard Verlag, Muenchen 1992
• Esser, Marion: Von Bruno bis heute, Praxis der Psychomotorik, 25(2), 2000, S. 68–76
• Winnicott, D.W.: Reifungsprozesse und foerdernde Umwelt, Muenchen 1962