Recently, a peer-reviewed critique of polyvagal theory has circulated widely, alongside thoughtful rebuttals and responses. This moment is not entirely new—our field has always included debate, revision, and refinement—but it is newly visible in the current zeitgeist. As faculty, we are often the ones holding questions that arise in real time for students, sometimes before the discourse has had time to settle.
What emerged clearly in our dialogue is a collective commitment to staying informed without becoming reactive. We are not tasked with defending or dismissing any single theory. Rather, we are called to model a way of engaging knowledge that is grounded, nuanced, and open.
Several threads feel important to name:
First, that polyvagal theory, like many frameworks we draw from, is a theory in progress. It offers language and conceptual clarity for phenomena we observe clinically—particularly around regulation, dysregulation, and co-regulation. At the same time, it is not without critique, and it is ethical and appropriate to acknowledge both its usefulness and its limitations when we teach.
Second, and perhaps most essential, is the reminder that Hakomi does not rest on any single contemporary theory for its validity. The principles and practices of Hakomi predate polyvagal theory and arise from a synthesis of experiential, contemplative, and relational wisdom traditions, alongside careful clinical observation. Modern theories—including polyvagal theory, attachment theory, neuroscience, parts work, and others—can serve as lenses that illuminate aspects of what we already know through practice. They are supportive, not foundational.
Third, we are living within an ongoing evolution of knowledge. Just as polyvagal theory is being questioned and refined, so too are other constructs in our field—parts language, limbic resonance, and various models of mind and body integration. This is not a sign of instability, but of vitality. Our role is not to resolve these debates prematurely, but to remain in a thoughtful relationship with them.
Fourth, the importance of experience remains central. Intellectual debate alone rarely transforms understanding. As many of you noted, students often arrive with strong conceptual frameworks, questions, or skepticism. Our work is to meet that with respect, clarity, and an invitation into embodied experience—where insight can arise in ways that are not dependent on agreement with any particular model.
Finally, there is something deeply reassuring in our shared stance. We do not need to issue definitive statements on every emerging critique. And yet, there is value in being able to say, in our own words and in our own teaching: we are aware, we are engaged, and we are thinking critically and compassionately about what we include and how we present it.
In this, we become a kind of steadying presence in the wider field—one that honors both inquiry and humility, both science and lived experience, both innovation and the ancient wisdom at the heart of Hakomi.
Hakomi Institute Board of Directors, April 2026