When I was in grad school, in the early 90’s, the founders of Bodynamics (and of Somatic Experiencing) were friends and colleagues of my therapist. So, my first exposure was personal. Then, around 1992, I was invited to participate in one of the first Bodynamic training programs to be offered in Canada. Later I became the coordinator for the Canadian branch of Bodynamics International (now the Association of Bodynamic Psychology). From the beginning, I was drawn to the robustness of the Bodynamic developmental framework and its way of specifying—down to individual muscles—exactly when and how developmental disruptions organize in the body. Even now, after all these years, I haven’t found a more comprehensive or detailed theory of development.
Bodynamics is primarily a European system and is not well-known in North America. So, for readers unfamiliar with the history and applications of the theory, I’ve provided a short summary below.
Historical Roots and Origins
Bodynamic Somatic Developmental Psychology emerged from Denmark in the early 1980s under the leadership of Lisbeth Marcher, a physical therapist and psychotherapist, along with ten of her colleagues (Marcher & Fich, 2010). The Bodynamic Institute was formally established in 1982, and the Bodynamic System took shape in 1985.
Marcher had studied the intersection of physical therapy and psychotherapy, conducting systematic research on psychomotor development in children from the second trimester of pregnancy through puberty. And she claimed to have discovered something remarkable: muscles have specific psychological functions (Marcher & Fich, 2010; Rupp, 2024).
Marcher and her colleagues collected more than 10,000 reports from both therapists and clients documenting which muscles were activated in sessions, which psychological issues emerged, and which developmental age levels seemed implicated. Since each muscle acquires its psychological imprint during the period when it comes under voluntary control, this data could be organized into a comprehensive developmental map. The result was a system identifying seven distinct developmental stages, each associated with specific muscles, specific psychological themes, and specific relational patterns (Bodynamic International, n.d.).
That psychological functions can be assigned to individual muscles seems both amazing and intuitive for anyone who works from a somatic perspective. But it has proven very difficult to validate scientifically. I often have discussions about this challenge with my colleagues in Europe—and, because of it, I don’t use the muscle function mapping in my own work. It seems right, but until we have more data, I’ll remain skeptical. (More on this below.) Those interested in exploring the muscle function aspects of the theory should consult the Body Encyclopedia: A Guide to the Psychological Functions of the Muscular System (Marcher & Fich, 2010).
Conversely, the developmental framework of the Bodynamic system is something I use extensively in my own work. It builds upon earlier findings in psychology, provides unique insights, and is an effective way to think about how development works. (It is, of course, a model; see my comments on the utility of models here). I’ve provided a summary of the core concepts below.
Core Concepts and Framework
The core of the Bodynamic theory is a developmental map that organizes human growth into seven stages from the second trimester of pregnancy through adolescence (my Guide for Therapists explores the first four stages and their use in working with trauma and addictions). Each stage revolves around a central psychological theme that the developing person must negotiate through relationship with caregivers:
- Existence and Belonging (2nd trimester to 3 months): The foundational question of whether the world is safe, whether existence is welcomed, whether there is a right to be here
- Need Fulfillment (1 month to 18 months): Learning whether needs lead to satisfaction, whether reaching out brings response, whether hunger can be fed
- Autonomy (8 months to 2.5 years): Discovering whether the world is safe to explore, whether autonomous action leads to competence or catastrophe
- Will and Power (2 to 4 years): Negotiating whether having power is acceptable, whether will can be asserted without loss of connection
- Love and Sexuality (3 to 6 years): Exploring capacity for love, tenderness, and early sexuality
- Opinion Formation (5 to 9 years): Developing capacity for independent thought and expressing one’s viewpoint
- Solidarity and Performance (7 to 13 years): Balancing belonging to peer groups with individual competence
The idea of mutual connection is central to the Bodynamic approach: the capacity to be fully oneself while remaining in deep connection with another. During each developmental stage, the child faces the question: When I am all of me, and you are all of you, can we be in connection? If the answer is yes, the child develops the somatic, mental, and psychological abilities appropriate for that stage. If not, the child gives up, holds back, or fails to acquire some aspect of self or relationship (Bodynamic International, n.d.).
One of the aspects of the framework that I appreciate is that it moves beyond simple categories of secure versus insecure attachment, offering instead a nuanced map of how specific developmental tasks either succeed or fail (and how these patterns become encoded in specific muscle groups, which is fascinating but, as I mentioned, not yet fully verified). The precision of the model allows clinicians to work with a high degree of specificity—identifying not just that early trauma occurred, but when it occurred, around which developmental themes, and in which somatic patterns.
The Bodynamic system also maps ten “Ego Functions”—fundamental psychological capacities such as grounding, centering, boundaries, energy management, and various patterns of interpersonal skills. These functions develop across the seven stages and can be strengthened through specific somatic work.
Why I Use Bodynamic Theory in Clinical Work
After decades of clinical practice with individuals struggling with addictions, trauma, and mental health challenges, I have found Bodynamic developmental theory indispensable for several reasons:
Developmental Detail
Most developmental models paint in broad strokes: secure versus insecure attachment, symbiosis versus separation, basic trust versus mistrust. These concepts illuminate important patterns but lack the precision required for targeted intervention. Bodynamic theory, by contrast, offers extraordinary granularity. When a client presents with a particular pattern—say, difficulty asserting boundaries, or compulsive caretaking, or inability to rest—Bodynamic theory allows me to identify:
- Which developmental stage this pattern likely organized (often multiple stages)
- What relational experiences would have created this pattern
- What specific resources the person never developed
- How to build those resources through somatic work
This level of detail helps move my clinical work from educated guessing to precise intervention. Rather than offering generic trauma therapy, I can work with the exact developmental deficit that creates this person’s particular struggle.
Somatic Grounding
Talk therapy has limits, especially with developmental trauma that occurred before language. The body does not negotiate verbally. For clients whose protective patterns formed in infancy—during the Existence and Belonging stage or the Need Fulfillment stage—cognitive insight rarely produces lasting change. The pattern persists because it is somatic, encoded in neural pathways and muscular responses that do not respond to interpretation.
Bodynamic theory offers direct access to these pre-verbal patterns through a somatic lens that speaks the nervous system’s language. Through body awareness, gentle resistance work, and specific movement patterns, clients can retrieve forgotten resources or develop new ones, approaching their traumatic experiences with capacities they did not have when the trauma occurred.
Integration of Multiple Perspectives
Bodynamic theory draws on multiple disciplines: psychomotor development research, attachment theory, depth psychology, neuroscience, and ethology. This integration creates a model robust enough to account for the complexity of human development without reducing it to a single factor. The model recognizes genetic predispositions, prenatal influences, attachment patterns, developmental sequences, trauma responses, and cultural contexts—holding all of these in view simultaneously.
For someone like me, who thinks in an interdisciplinary way and appreciates holistic perspectives, this integration is of real benefit. I can draw on attachment research to understand relational patterns, neuroscience to explain nervous system responses, and somatic psychology to guide intervention—all within a single coherent framework.
Ongoing Questions and Limitations
Despite its strengths, Bodynamic theory has limitations that warrant acknowledgment. The empirical research, while extensive, remains largely descriptive rather than experimental. The 10,000+ case reports from Marcher and her colleagues provide rich clinical data but do not constitute controlled trials. We cannot definitively establish causation—that specific muscle patterns cause specific psychological difficulties—only correlation and clinical observation of patterns. (But it is such a cool idea.)
Also, the model’s complexity can be overwhelming (which is why I use a simplified version in my guide). Learning to identify developmental stage disruptions, and apply appropriate interventions, requires significant training. The detail that makes the model powerful also makes it less accessible than simpler frameworks.
My Take
Bodynamic theory offers one of the most detailed and thorough maps of childhood development available. Its precision in specifying when and how developmental patterns organize, combined with its somatic grounding and clinical applicability, makes it an invaluable tool for me in working with developmental trauma, addictions, and mental health challenges.
The model recognizes that development proceeds through relationship, that patterns form through the interaction of biological predisposition and environmental response, and that healing requires building resources rather than simply understanding deficits. This humility—acknowledging the irreducibility of human experience while still offering practical guidance—suits the reality of my clinical work.
For me, Bodynamic theory provides the developmental precision I need without sacrificing respect for individual variation and the mystery of human change. When I sit with someone struggling to understand why they return again and again to patterns that cause suffering, Bodynamic theory offers me a way to say: Let’s consider the possibility that this pattern organized for good reason during a specific window of your development. It served you then. Now we can identify what resources you missed and build them, so the old pattern becomes unnecessary.
That combination—honoring what was, while creating space for what might be—represents the best, in my view, of what developmental psychology can offer clinical practice.
Sources
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. N. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bahlawan-Marcher, H., Marcher, K. V., & Mathias, D. (2025). Reclaiming wholeness: Ukrainian veterans and the somatic revolution of healing. Bodynamic International. https://www.bodynamic.com/blog/reclaiming-wholeness-ukrainian-veterans/
Bodynamic International. (n.d.). Home. https://www.bodynamic.com/
Bodynamic International. (2021). Overcoming shock trauma and PTSD: Bodynamic for Ukrainian veterans. https://www.bodynamic.com/blog/overcoming-shock-trauma-and-ptsd-bodynamic-for-ukrainian-veterans/
Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
Marcher, L., & Fich, S. (2010). Body encyclopedia: A guide to the psychological functions of the muscular system. North Atlantic Books.
Rupp, M. (2024). Embodiment—the alpha and the omega of somatic psychotherapy. British Association for Holistic Medicine & Health Care. https://bhma.org/embodiment-the-alpha-and-the-omega-of-somatic-psychotherapy/
