Some background info:
In 1972, Moshé Feldenkrais was invited to teach for five-and-a-half weeks at the Esalen Institute in Big Sur, California. According to the book, „Esalen 1972 Workshop” by Feldenkrais® Resources, this workshop was sponsored by Esalen, and organized by psychologists Stanley Keleman and Will Schutz. Among the fourteen participants (by invitation only) were Judith Aston, Seymour Carter, Jack Downing, Betty Fuller, Richard Price, Frank Ottiwell, Ilana Rubenfeld and Judith Stransky.
In a podcast between Larry Goldfarb and Judith Stransky, Judith Stransky talked about her memories of those classes:
11:21 (Judith Stransky) btw . when we started . there were no terms like Awareness Though Movement or Functional Integration . we have created those terms in that program . it was just called the Feldenkrais Method and it was called the group work and the private lessons
35:55 (Judith Stransky) we said . you can call the group work Awareness Though Movement . and that seemed to be a no-brainer [..] Moshé just sat there and he didn’t say a word . he just let us talk about it [..] we were throwing out our ideas [..] then we had great difficulty finding a word for the individual work . the hands-on work . we thought . you know . different people came up with different terms and none of them seemed right . or appropriate . and then we said well the only term that seems right is the one that Ida Rolf already is using . which is Structural Integration . that is the most appropriate term we said to Moshé for your individual work . but we can’t use it because Ida Rolf is using it . and then somebody said . Functional Integration . and we all said yaaaayyy! . that’s it! . and Moshé just sat there passively . he didn’t say a word . so from then on those were the terms
Full interview here: https://mindinmotion-online.com/judith-stransky/
So, now, Functional Integration, its short form FI, is a wonderfully catchy term. But the greater public can’t use it because the International Feldenkrais Foundation (?) has trademarked those terms and only graduates from their training programs are allowed to call it Functional Integration when they do hands-on work in-the-style-of or inspired-by Moshé Feldenkrais.
Anyways. Now I’ve spent two hours on putting that together, and have not yet written a word of what I really wanted to write about. Silly me.
Notes, what I really wanted to write about:
How is the term „functional” used by movement professionals nowadays? As in functional movement patterns, assessment and screening.
How is that different from movement that has meaning? As in words and actions that have meaning (to whom?)
Wouldn’t the term „meaning”, as in the search for meaning and purpose through hands-on work, be more whole and complete, more appropriate? After all, we not only touch on the physical reality of the body, but we’re also including the ability to sense, to perceive, to feel and to think (and to apply good judgement and to weigh options probably?), and most of all, we touch on „how” we act in this world, the quality and style. Heritage and adaption. Wouldn’t „meaning” be a much better term than the rather cold sounding, technical term „functional”?