This post serves more as a "heads-up" as opposed to anything otherwise informative. To date, I have managed to accumulate a solid 21 years of professional experience in the field of health sciences...ranging from high performance fitness training, teaching human anatomy in University science labs, and more recently to the rehabilitative challenges of neurodevelopmental disorders. Although the years may span a decent period of time, it is actually the diverse population of people and experiences that are perhaps the most valuable. I have been fortunate enough to work with some of the most physically impressive specimens as well as some of the most fragile individuals imagineable...and everything in between.
It is with this plethora of exposure, combined with many interactions with intelligent collegues, and some all-important healthy criticism, that has lead to the Fascia Therapy concept I am currently launching in Chile and abroad. This new and refreshing endeavour has lead to the opportunity to present this experience and philosophy in writing in the form of a formal publication...hopefully to be released sometime in the very near future. This conglomerate of experiences, theories, formulations, and philosophies has come together to form what I have termed: The Fascia Therapy Theorem for Neurodevelopmental Disorders.
Although the official text has yet to be completed...and is still very much in "draft" form, I wanted to share the current introduction here for those interested to read. I am somewhat unfamiliar with publication "protocol", however I am hoping to be able to share more "bits and pieces" as time goes along. It is only a very small portion if the entire text, but it should present a decent image and "texture" for the entire body of work.
New Frameworks and Solutions in Rehabilitation for Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Gavin Broomes B.Sc.
The objective of this chapter is to present a global perspective on what can be considered a very elusive and daunting topic. Neurodevelopmental disorders are very diverse and present equally diverse manifestations and challenges. However, despite this reality, there are some very tangible similarities that essentially allow the medical professional / practitioner to impose a significant amount of productive and positive benefit which will ultimately result in more manageable situations, more efficient treatment strategies, and significantly better treatment outcomes.
In the 20+ years of formal education, clinical, and hands-on experience leading up to this current philosophy, I have been fortunate enough to have been exposed to a very wide spectrum of human performance…from the most highly trained athlete to the most fragile child with neurodevelopmental disorder. It is my firm belief and conviction that this exposure has provided some valuable insight and perspective into the exponentially complex human organism. In essence, a very explicit demonstration of not what separates these two polarities (which is relatively obvious and certainly intuitive)…rather what is the common thread between them. This is a seemingly paradoxical suggestion…how can two polarities (extremes) share anything in common? The answer to this is that both are not exclusive entities, but are simply very different manifestations of the singular human condition. To be more precise, they both share the same embryological material and subsequently contain the same “architectural building blocks”…which effectively serve as the key to elicit the most powerful systemic and mechanical change.
This fundamental understanding was the genesis for the development of the new frameworks and solutions presented in this chapter. It was important for me to formulate this relatively complex philosophy to reflect a certain “neutrality” with respect to any specific belief, conviction, or position a professional may have. Any such bias would inevitably result in the breaking of the “law of contradiction” which specifies that any allegiance towards a specific “technique” or approach would essentially imply that any other course of action or belief would be “wrong”…therefore a philosophy that is based in fundamental neutrality can be applied across the entire spectrum of personal and professional ideals and convictions.
1. Organic Versus Mechanistic Perspectives:
The Organic vs. Mechanistic comparison is typically associated with the analysis of business models and issues surrounding hierarchical structures of large corporations, however when this general philosophy is imported into the biological analysis it demonstrates equal ability to elicit enhanced clarity and perspective on an otherwise complex task.
This type of organization is characterized by hierarchical and “bureaucratic” focus. Within the biological context, this is the overall equivalent to the overwhelming focus and attention solely on the neurological considerations…or in essence, a “top-down” mentality where the central nervous system (brain) is locus of control for everything. This analysis is in-line with the precise definition of a mechanistic organization: highly centralized authority, formalized “procedures and practice”, specialized functions.
The mechanistic perspective in the neurodevelopmental context is almost a necessity due to the fact that it is easier and simpler to manage. Additionally, it provides significant quantitative metrics through which practitioners can measure progress, deterioration, and even assign diagnoses. Although relatively easier to manage, it is very sensitive to rapid change. The essential “chain of command” is quite strong and therefore requires that all decision-making come directly from the top. In that sense, the brain is considered as the overriding system that ultimately controls, moderates, and directly influences all physiological functions…from the systemic to the mechanical. Further, this organizational structure is characterized by “communication” and information flowing solely from the upper levels…even more so, any communication that goes to (or comes from) the bottom is vertical, meaning that there is very little lateral communication within the lower levels.
In contrast the mechanistic organization, organic organization is characterized by what is defined as “flatness”, which essentially means that communication and interaction is primarily horizontal. Ironically, there is also a certain low level of specialization which indicates that elements (tissues, in the biological context) adopt many different roles depending on the specific environment and stimulus. An example of this would be the paradoxical role of connective tissue as both “connecting” and “disconnecting” contributors…in addition to its role in force transmission, injury repair, and systemic homeostasis. Additionally, there is a characteristic “decentralization” in the decision-making process…meaning that some actions / reactions are directly and indirectly managed by the lower levels (or the more primitive levels, in the biological context).
The organic organization reflects a contrasting “bottom-up” performance and therefore is extremely adaptable and flexible to sudden, large, or rapid change. The sharing of roles and responsibilities makes it “less fragile” and more robust.
Organic Organization and links to rehabilitation
This analogy is less of a dichotomy and more of a continuum. To be precise, the human organism is exponentially more complex than a business model therefore it cannot be explained with a relatively simplistic analysis as this. The “organic versus mechanistic” model ultimately serves as a philosophical framework that essentially encompasses a larger fundamental understanding which then results in a certain clarity of thought.
The complexities of the human organism are far too numerous to describe…and given that we have yet to uncover ALL of the wonders of the human body, the absolute complexity remains a mystery. It is this fundamental reality that underlines the necessity for an expanded perspective when it comes to the added complexities of neurodevelopmental disorder.