Rethinking "Control" in Contrology
As many of us know, Joseph Pilates defined Contrology as "the complete coordination of body, mind, and spirit." This definition emphasises control over thoughts, movements, and overall physical function. But as teachers, we might want to question whether this emphasis on control always serves our students best.
A Shift in Teaching Approach
When we examine the concept of control for teachers, several important considerations emerge:
Student Autonomy: True development happens when students internalise the fundamental concepts and can apply them independently. If teachers maintain too much control, students may become dependent on their cues rather than developing their own proprioception.
Facilitating vs. Controlling: As teachers, our role might be better viewed as facilitating a student's journey toward their own bodily awareness rather than controlling their experience. This shift allows students to develop their own internal understanding.
Individualised Experience: Each body is unique, and what works for one person may not work for another. Removing rigid control allows for adaptation to individual needs, abilities, and learning styles.
Evolving Practice: The Pilates method has evolved significantly since Joseph's time. Modern understanding of biomechanics and pedagogy suggests that a collaborative approach may be more effective than a strictly controlled one.
Mindful Guidance: Rather than controlling every aspect of a student's practice, we might focus on mindful guidance—offering options, creating space for exploration, and encouraging self-discovery.
The Hidden Costs of Too Much Control
When teachers maintain too much control in a Pilates practice, several consequences can emerge:
Limited creativity and exploration: Students don't develop the confidence to explore movements in ways that might better serve their unique bodies.
Diminished body awareness: Over-reliance on teacher cues can prevent students from developing their internal sensing abilities.
Reduced problem-solving skills: Students don't learn to troubleshoot movement challenges or make adjustments when something doesn't feel right.
Motivation issues: External control can undermine intrinsic motivation, making students less likely to practice independently.
Power imbalance: An overly controlling teaching style can create an unhealthy hierarchy that may make students uncomfortable.
Stalled progress: Students might reach a plateau because they aren't learning to challenge themselves appropriately.
Limited transfer of skills: The concepts may remain confined to class sessions rather than being integrated into daily life movement patterns.
Anxiety around "correctness": Students may become preoccupied with performing exercises "perfectly" according to the teacher's standards.
Decreased confidence: Students may doubt their ability to practice without supervision, creating unnecessary dependency.
Resistance to new approaches: When exposed to different teaching styles, students may struggle to adapt if they've only learned through rigid control.
Moving Forward
This perspective doesn't diminish Joseph's original vision but rather adapts it to a modern teaching context that values student empowerment alongside technical precision. The "coordination" part of his definition remains essential, while the approach to achieving it may shift from external control to internal development.