Over the past few years I have benefited mightily from the Alexander Technique. If you don’t know what the Alexander technique is, well, I’m not qualified to describe it, but it falls into one of those categories of “alternative medicine.” Simply stated, the practitioner very gently touches you, and this gentle touch realigns and guides your musculature in such a way that your body moves more naturally, your posture improves, etc. etc.
I’ve also recently been introduced to Reiki; this is an Eastern medicine technique of guiding your “energy” through very light touch, and sometimes the person doing the treatment just holds their hands very close to you without touching you.
Now, full disclosure, the benefits of these alternative therapies are blatantly obvious to me. I feel better, I look better, and my posture’s better. But, being the socially gregarious person I am, when I talk about this stuff to some people, they are extremely skeptical. They view this sort of thing as quackery. They want to see “the science.” At such moments, I always feel a little awkward; it’s like I have stated a belief in creationism at a physics conference.
But, lo and behold, there is science. You can look it up yourself, but basically, children who are denied “touch” do not grow and develop as well as children who get their “touch” needs met. This is not hokum; we have “science.”
In a similar vein, when we put children in “timeouts” or “ground” them for the weekend, clearly, their being put in the state of isolation/disconnection is unpleasant for them. The science, well, this is empirical data, but it’s awfully consistent. Also, for people who have been imprisoned for life, the only way you can punish them is to put them in solitary confinement. The lack of contact with other people is painful, so much so that it can make one go crazy.
And then there is all that data about people who are married, or who own dogs, living longer.
Since contact with other living beings clearly has an effect on health, it is not logical . . . or “scientific” . . . to automatically dismiss the idea that touch, all by itself, has the power to enhance one’s health.
The conclusion: while many people are quick to dismiss the therapeutic benefits of such modalities, their objections aren’t really based on “science.” It’s an issue of trust, and fear of the unknown. And this is where the “possibilities of art” come in.
Art is, among other things, a very imprecise and unpredictable way in which we get essential psychological and physiological needs met. If we lack artistic literacy, our fear steps in and isolates us, and we are severely limited in terms of what we can experience or even discuss.
I often encounter people who say they “hate” classical music. What they really mean is, they once had an extremely painful boring (read: trust violation) experience with it, and now they seek to avoid it. We have all had trust violations regarding contact with other human beings, and I can understand that this can lead to doubt and hesitation. This seems very logical, but let’s be clear: in such cases, we are not really questioning “the science.” It’s an issue of emotion, mostly one that of overcoming trauma of past trust violations. It’s about being feeling safe enough to risk the loss of control that trust always implies. But that is the only way to experience the benefits of something that clearly exists, even though it is inconsistent and we can’t fully control or understand it.
© Justin Locke
