Feldenkrais (1985, p. 91) reflects directly on the deeply embedded and rigid opposition to his own work and the subsequent cost of rebellion:

We teach such a rigidity of mind and body that we need “breaking in”, for any but familiar, habitual conditions. In fact, the human nervous system is eminently suitable for change. Our early experience prepares us for conditions analogous to those known our parents, allowing only for minor differences. Any significant change demands a deep, revolutionary modification in our attitude and response. Using the property of the nervous system, which we work so hard to diminish, it is possible to form individuals capable of coping with a changing world without such intense emotional upheavals that bring many to prostrated breakdowns.

Feldenkrais (1985, p. 91) also identifies “emotionally unstable” conditions (both collective and individual) that are particularly conducive to the emergence of “revolutionary” ideas, while reminding us of challenge faced by the revolutionary outlier:

We find emotional instability almost universally (1) in nations that are in the process of deep social and economic transformation, and (2) in people who dare to deviate from the traditional mode of action of their parents, their class, or social group. Those who have dared to go off the beaten path, and would have had a chance of getting somewhere if they were properly equipped, are precisely those who have failed to make even the usual success of their lives.

Gladwell should reframe Feldenkrais’ rather pessimistic appraisal by indicating that the result of the revolutionary’s work might not be so much the absence of ‘usual” success in their life, but rather the presence of an “unusual” success. It is not only the revolutionary’s perspectives and practices that are “new”—it is also the fundamental criteria of “success” that resides outside the existing paradigm.

Differences

The background and experiences of Reich and Feldenkrais were in many ways quite similar. Both men envisioned and enacted therapeutic approaches that incorporated both body and mind. Nevertheless, the treatment modes that emerged for these two pioneers were intended to further different aims. Wilhelm Reich and his follower, Alexander Lowen (1994) wished to directly heal the wounded human heart as well as the human body. They believed that energy which usually flows freely through our body has been blocked as a result of some trauma in our earlier life. The blockage and sustained stress and muscular tremors resulting from this blockage produces rigid character armor. The trauma itself must be treated and this requires talk-based psychoanalytic treatment.