Aldri utlært

Jeg har tidligere skrevet om parallellene mellom Alexanderteknikken og det å lære å spille et musikkinstrument. Alexanderteknikken er også noe du lærer litt etter litt, og som du blir bedre på jo mer tid du investerer. Akkurat som når du spiller et instrument blir du aldri utlært. Du kan alltid lære noe nytt. 

Nye låter

Nybegynnere på et instrument spiller enkle ting. Å finne og trykke ned riktig tangent kan være mer enn nok i første omgang. I Alexanderteknikken begynner vi også med enkle ting, som å stå, sitte og gå. Etter hvert lærer du deg å bruke Alexanderteknikken i mer komplekse aktiviteter. Teknikken kan brukes i alle sammenhenger, så det finnes alltid noe nytt å prøve ut. Det blir som å lære seg å spille et nytt stykke. Det er kanskje det mest spennende ved å spille et instrument, og det mest utfordrende ved å bruke Alexanderteknikken. Livet har mange utfordringer og Alexanderteknikken kan komme til nytte selv i situasjoner du ikke forventer det.

Nyanser

Nybegynnere på et musikkinstrument kan ha nok med å spille notene og lite ferdighet til å skape nyanser. Å gjøre forskjell på sterkt og svakt er ofte det enkleste og første man lærer. I Alexanderteknikken er det veldig ulikt hva elever oppfatter av nyanser til å begynne med. Det handler gjerne om «veldig anspent» og «litt mindre anspent». Med erfaring blir du oppmerksom på stadig mindre nyanser. Det handler like mye om kvalitet på muskelspenning som på graden av spenning. Det blir som når en musiker kan variere klangen og gi liv til hver enkelt tone. En erfaren musiker kan gi nytt liv til selv helt enkle og kjente melodier. På samme måte kan en som er erfaren i Alexanderteknikken oppdage nye dynamiske forhold i de mest enkle og dagligdagse bevegelser. Det er utforskning som aldri trenger å ta slutt. 

Gamle og nye vaner

Alexanderteknikken handler om å avlære unødvendige vaner. Vaner må vi ha, og vi lærer oss nye hele tiden, uten at vi kanskje merker det. Vi kan alltid jobbe med å forfine hvordan vi gjør ting på, akkurat som erfarne musikere alltid jobber med grunnleggende teknikk. Selv den beste fiolinist kan ha nytte av å øve på bare å stryke på løse strenger. Når vi blir eldre endrer kroppen seg. Det gir også behov for forbedring.

Alexanderteknikken kan også brukes når du lærer helt nye ting. Teknikken gjør at vaner kan være mer fleksible og det blir lettere å lære seg noe nytt. Også på den måten kan det sies at Alexanderteknikken bidrar til at det alltid er mer å lære. 

Relaterte blogginnlegg

Klingende Alexanderteknikk

Samklang

Pauser 

Litt hver dag 

The Primary Movement

What is ‘the primary movement’?

If you are an Alexander Technique teacher you probably know, or at least think you do. It is quite possible you have got it wrong.

A precursor

Alexander writes about the primary movement in his 1907 article ‘The Theory and Practice of a New Method of Respiratory Re-Education.’(1)The article was later incorporated with only minor changes in the 1918 edition of Man's Supreme Inheritance and forms the third and last section of that book.

In a note to the text Sean Fischer writes:

“True primary movement” is the movement which precedes other movements and which therefore provides the controlling factor in influencing subsequent movements. It can be regarded as the precursor of the term “primary control” (Fischer ed. 1995, p.281).(2)

Like many Alexander Technique students I was taught during my teacher training that ‘the primary movement’ was the beginnings of the concept of primary control. I remember believing at the time this movement to be the ‘forward and up’ of the head. In the latest issue of the Alexander Journal, Alexander Technique teacher Malcolm Williamson writes:

Most Alexander practitioners understand the true primary movement as ‘going up’ (lengthening of the spine) … (Williamson, 2021b, p.81).(3)

Williamson also writes:

We shall probably never know for sure exactly to what Alexander was referring when he wrote: ... a proper knowledge and practical employment of the true primary movement in each and every act (ibid).

I think we can find out what Alexander meant, if we study what he wrote.

The Theory And Practice Of A New Method Of Respiratory Re-Education

To understand Alexander's ‘true primary movement’ in his article from 1907, we have to include the sentence preceding the phrase:

At the outset let me point out that respiratory education or respiratory re-education will not prove successful unless the mind of the pupil is thoroughly imbued with the true principles which apply to atmospheric pressure, the equilibrium of the body, the centre of gravity, and to positions of mechanical advantage where the alternate expansions and contractions of the thorax are concerned. In other words, it is essential to have a proper mental attitude towards respiratory education or re-education, and the specific acts which constitute the exercises embodied in it, together with a proper knowledge and practical employment of the true primary movement in each and every act (Alexander 1996, p.200; Fischer ed. 1995, p.57; Fischer ed. 2022, p.95).

‘In other words’ points back at the preceding sentence. This means that the last part of the first sentence corresponds with the last part of the second sentence. The ‘true primary movement in each and every act’ has to do with ‘the alternate expansions and contractions of the thorax.’(4)

This is the most obvious and simplest interpretation. That this is the correct one becomes evident if we study the rest of the article. Alexander uses the expression primary movement not once, but three times in the same article(5), and twice directly related to breathing!:

Most people, if asked to take a "deep breath," will proceed to—I use the words spoken by thousands of people I have experimented upon—" suck air into the lungs to expand the chest," whereas of course the proper expansion of the chest, as a primary movement, causes the alae nasi to be dilated and the lungs to be instantly filled with air by atmospheric pressure, without any harmful lowering of the pressure (Alexander 1996, p.200-201; Fischer ed. 1995, p.58; Fischer ed. 2022, p.96 ).

Then follows due increase in the movements of expansion and contraction of the thorax until such movements are adequate and perfectly controlled. Further, these expansions are primary movements in securing that increase in the capacity of the chest necessary to afford the normal oscillations of atmospheric pressure, without unduly lowering that pressure … (Alexander 1996, p.208; Fischer ed. 1995, p.64; Fischer ed. 2022, p.102).

The above quotations should be sufficient for anyone to conclude that what Alexander was referring to when writing about the ‘true primary movement’ was not the head going forward and up, or lengthening, but the expansions and contractions of the thorax.(6)

Each and every act

Teachers claiming the primary movement to be a precursor for the primary control argues that ‘each and every act’ must mean ‘each and every act in life,’ not ‘each and every act of breathing.’ Which is it? Let's have a look at what Alexander actually says in the text.

Alexander uses the word ‘act’ multiple times in the 1907 article. The word are most times used related to breathing. More specifically he uses the expressions ‘act of breathing’ (Fischer ed. 1995 p.56; Fischer ed. 2022, p.94; Alexander 1996, p.196, p.199) and ‘the inspiratory act’ (Fischer ed. 1995, p.64; Fischer ed. 2022, p.102; Alexander 1996, p.207). But most importantly he uses the phrase ‘each and every respiratory act’:

… a proper mental attitude towards respiration is at once inculcated, so that each and every respiratory act in the practice of the exercises is the direct result of volition, the primary, secondary, and other movements necessary to the proper performance of such act having first been definitely indicated to the pupil (Fischer ed. 1995, p.63; Fischer ed. 2022, p.101; Alexander 1996, p.206).

When Alexander writes ‘the true primary movement in each and every act’ he means the true primary movement in each and every act of breathing, in other words, the movement of the thorax in every breath.(7)

Authorised Summaries Of F.M. Alexander’s Four Books

The above arguments are based on the original article published in Articles and Lectures (Fischer ed. 1995; Fischer ed. 2022) and Man's Supreme Inheritance (Alexander 1996). But there is a third version of ‘The Theory And Practice Of A New Method Of Respiratory Re-Education,’ the abridged version in Authorised Summaries Of F.M. Alexander’s Four Books by Ron Brown (Brown ed. 1992).

The journalist Ron Brown wrote the summaries in the late 1940s.(8) Alexander read and approved the draft himself, signing each page (Brown ed. 1992, p.9). Considering the importance Alexander put on the primary control at this stage in his career, (Alexander used the term ‘primary control’ more than one hundred times in The Universal Constant in Living), it is interesting to see what the abridged version of the article says about the primary movement(s).

Brown kept this sentence almost unchanged from the original:

At the outset let me point out that respiratory education or re-education, will not prove successful unless the mind of the pupil is imbued with the true principles which apply to atmospheric pressure, the equilibrium of the body, the centre of gravity and to positions of mechanical advantage where the alternate expansions and contractions of the thorax is concerned (Brown ed. 1992, p.31).

But the next sentence, containing ‘the true primary movement in each and every act’ is cut! If ‘the true primary movement’ indeed was the ‘precursor’ and first sign of what was to become ‘the primary control,’ it is very unlikely it would have been omitted.

One of the other passages, saying the primary movement is the proper expansion of the chest, was kept:

Most people, if asked to take a "deep breath," will "suck air into the lungs to expand the chest," whereas, of course, the proper expansion of the chest as a primary movement causes the nostrils to be dilated and the lungs to be instantly filled without any harmful lowering of the pressure in the nasal passages (ibid, p.32). [‘in the nasal passages’ added to the original MSI text].

Primary motive power

Alexander's ‘true primary movement’ is thoracic movement in breathing. Alexander uses closely related descriptions in earlier articles. (The emphasis in the quotations below are mine).

Introduction To A New Method Of Respiratory Vocal Re-Education (1906)

In a future work I hope to deal more fully with the scientific aspect of practical respiratory re-education. At present I simply state the great principle to be antagonistic action, perfect employment of which is the forerunner of that control which ensures the correct use of the muscular system of the thorax in its fullest sense as the primary motive power in the respiratory act, also adequate muscular development, non-interference with the larynx and nasal dilation (Fischer ed. 1995, p.43, Fischer ed. 2022, p.81).

… the student who is taught from the very beginning of his respiratory re-education to convert the air exhaled into whispered tones (consciously employing the true motive power) and the proper vowel or vowels will have learnt what should always be one of the simplest forms of vocal effort … (Fischer ed. 1995, p.47, Fischer ed. 2022, p.85).

.

Mr F. Matthias Alexander's New Method Of Respiratory And Vocal Re-Education (January 1906)

… in re-education there must first be conscious employment of the mechanism governing the respiratory act and the control of the motive power in vocalization; … (Fischer ed. 1995, p.37; Fischer ed. 2022, p.73).

“Disciplinary Singing And Heart Disease” (12 January 1906)

… voice production from the earliest age with proper control of the respiratory mechanism is one of the best possible things, and any one trained to use correctly the true motive power in voice production could not injure the heart and would be in the same position reared in the colonies, where, from early age, they live mostly in the open air and shout and sing from morn till night (Fischer, ed. 1995, p.37; Fischer ed. 2022, p.67).

A Respiratory Method (c. 1905)

The employment of Mr Alexander's method, under medical supervision, has shown that it restores the control over the true thoracic mechanism; … secures the maximum of thoracic mobility ...prevents thoracic rigidity in physical effort … and renders a rigid thorax adequately mobile, … (Fischer, ed. 1995, p.27-28; Fischer ed. 2022, p.61-62).

Such erroneous ideas [about nasal breathing] are cherished by those who conceive them, simply because there is a sad lack of practical knowledge concerning the all-important subject of nasal breathing and the true motive power in respiration. …
Mr Alexander's method secures that absolute control over the thoracic mechanism which enables the student to secure an adequate air supply through the nostrils in physical effort, in singing, speaking, and during sleep, and also in ordinary conversation, and the founder of the method has proved these facts to the satisfaction of many members of the medical profession of London (Fischer, ed. 1995, p.29, Fischer ed. 2022, p.63-64).

The Prevention And Cure Of Consumption (12 December 1903)

Many theories have been advanced in explanation of the cause of causes of the prevalence of the lung disease known as consumption, but there can be no doubt whatever that it is due chiefly to the decay in the breathing power of mankind, … . The decay referred to may be described as an almost complete failure of the thoracic mechanism, which causes the motive power in breath-taking to be thrown almost entirely upon the throat muscles; … (Fischer ed. 1995, p.20; Fischer ed. 2022, p.52).

Such defects [bad habits associated with poor breathing] could not exist if the thoracic mechanism performed the functions ordained by Nature. The motive power for the respiratory act belongs solely to the thorax; and the existence of this natural action ensures that the throat and neck muscles, the larynx and the shoulders remain passive; the breath will pass noiselessly into the lungs, while those passages will be dilated instead of being contracted (Fischer, ed. 1995, p.20; Fischer ed. 2022, p.53).

We see in these quotations from Alexander's early writings the ‘primary motive power’ having a similar function as ‘primary movement,’ He even uses the expression ‘true motive power’ as in ‘true primary movement in each and every act;’(9) and he says explicitly that ‘The motive power for the respiratory act belongs solely to the thorax’.

To a modern Alexander Technique teacher it is striking how great importance Alexander put on the free movement of the thorax. In the early part of his career it was the thorax, or ‘thoracic mechanism’ that was the focal point of his work, not the head-neck-back relationship. It is no wonder he defined thoracic movement as being ‘primary’.(10)

The Lady of the Deep C

Having identified the true meaning of Alexander's ‘true primary movement,’ and looked at the use of similar concepts in Alexander's early writings, we can find even earlier references which can throw light on the matter. Alexander is quoted in a newspaper article published in the Daily Express, October 1904, only months after Alexander arrived in London:

The primary movement of breathing must be thoracic, that is, the thorax or chest-box must be expanded naturally without drawing in any breath by suction. The thorax must be made as mobile as possible. (Daily Express 1904). (See also Staring, 2018, p.109).(11)

Alexander is explicitly clear: in breathing, the ‘primary movement’ is not lengthening, it is the movement of the thorax.

The true precursor(s)

The ‘true primary movement’ is not the precursor to ‘the primary control’. What are the true precursors can be detected in Alexander's early articles.

In his 1906 article he reveals ‘… the great principle to be antagonistic action, perfect employment of which is the forerunner of that control which ensures the correct use of the muscular system of the thorax in its fullest sense …’ (Fischer ed. 1995, p.43; Fischer ed. 2022, p.81). In his 1907 article he mentions ‘positions of mechanical advantage where the alternate expansions and contractions of the thorax are concerned’ (Fischer ed. 1995 p.57; Alexander 1996, p.200; Fischer ed. 2022, p.95).

These concepts are about the relationships of parts, just as the primary control ‘becomes a something in the sphere of relativity’ (Murray 2015 p.124; Vineyard/Fischer eds. 2020, p.404). It is antagonistic action and positions of mechanical advantage that are the organising principles in Alexander's early work.(12)

Even if we give ‘the true primary movement’ the benefit of doubt, (which should be non-existent at this point), and defines it as ‘lengthening,’ it is still not the precursor to the concept of the primary control.(13)

The first movement

‘The primary movement of breathing must be thoracic’, according to Alexander. But what about other activities than breathing?

Alexander's very first mention of primary movement might give a clue. When still in Australia he planned to publish a book. (Breathing, Vocalisation, and Physical Culture) which was never finished (Fischer ed. 2022, p.346). In the prospect for the book he writes about its contents:

Physical Culture and Body Building

3.(A perfect system of physical development, having a correct and natural primary movement for each exercise) (Fischer ed. 2022, p.347)

That this does not relate directly to breathing is borne out of the fact that Alexander's preceding points are ‘1. The Treatment of Disease’ and ‘2. The Cultivation and Development of the Human voice’ (ibid).

What is the 'correct and natural primary movement for each exercise'? If the primary movement was lengthening, then it must have been lengthening also for the act of breathing. But as we already have seen, this is not the case. Which movement, or movements, is Alexander referring to? We get a better understanding by looking at how Alexander uses the phrase later on.

Later movements

We have so far looked at the use of the phrase ‘primary movement’ in Alexander's earliest texts, but he used the phrase also after his 1907 article In Man's Supreme Inheritance (MSI) he writes:

The whole physiology of walking is, indeed, perfectly simple when once these fundamental principles are understood. It is really resolved into the primary movements of allowing the body to incline forward from the ankle on which the weight is supported and then preventing oneself from falling by allowing the weight to be taken in turn by the foot which has been advanced (Alexander 1996 p.172), Alexander 2021, p.235).

The quote is from the chapter Notes and Instances. It appears first in the Addenda to MSI, written 1911 and integrated into the 1918 edition. We see that ‘primary movement’ is used about the initial stages of the process of walking. As in his 1903 book prospect, it is not directly related to breathing. 

The last instance where we find ‘primary movement’ in Alexander's writings is in Constructive Conscious Control (CCC). Here it is used in connection with a ‘technical evolution’. The most well-known example of a technical evolution in Alexander's books is the description of ‘hands on the back of a chair’ which we can find in another chapter of CCC (Alexander 2004, pp.112-122).

Those who are fortunate, or unfortunate, enough to undertake to act as teachers are well aware of the difficulty of finding an adult who can, as we say, think of more than one thing at a time, or perform satisfactorily any evolution requiring the co-ordinated use of even two parts of the organism. Co-ordinated use of the different parts during any evolution calls for the continuous, conscious projection of orders to the different parts involved, the primary order concerned with the guidance and control of the primary part of the act being continued whilst the orders connected with the secondary part of the movement are projected, and so on, however many orders are required (the number of these depending upon the demands of the processes concerned with a particular movement). Ordinarily, in attempts to use two or more parts in remedial work, the primary projection ends with the correct or incorrect use of the parts concerned with the primary movement. This applies to all other projections concerned with other parts of the movement, and is another instance of concentrated effort connected with a procedure based on the " end-gaining" principle. The projection of continued, conscious orders, on the other hand, calls for a broad, reasoning attitude, ... (Alexander 2004, 170-171, my emphasis).

We see that ‘primary movement’ relates to ‘the primary part of the act’ in the preceding sentence. Primary movement does not mean lengthening, It simply means the first part of the movement or activity. This is similar to the quote from MSI describing walking, but this time Alexander is not describing any specific activity. He is writing about ‘technical evolutions’ in general. But the most important difference is that the main point here is giving directions, the ‘projecting of orders’, not the movements themselves. The quote from CCC is from the chapter Concentration and the Sustained (Continuous) Projection of Orders.(14)

The meaning of ‘primary movement’, then, depends on the activity. In breathing, it is thoracic movement, in walking it is allowing the body to incline forwards from the ankles. In other activities it could be a different movement. We can assume that other moments than the ‘correct and natural primary movement’ are unecessary and unwanted and should be inhibited.(15)

Brown revisited

Above I compared Alexander's 1907 text with corresponding passages in the abridged version in Ron Brown's Authorised Summaries. Can we find additional information about the quotes from MSI and CCC by looking at Brown's version?

There us no sign of the description of walking in Brown . This is understandable as the theme in this section of MSI is 'the correct standing position' (Alexander 1996, 168-175, Brown ed. 1992, 27-28). The example of walking is an elaboration on this theme.

Brown's version of the quote from CCC reads:

Teachers are familiar with the adult who says that he cannot think of more than one thing at a time, or perform satisfactorily any evolution requiring the co-ordinated use of even two parts of the organism. Such co-ordinated use calls for the continuous, conscious projection of orders to the different parts involved, the primary order, concerned with the guidance and control of the primary part of the act, being continued while the orders connected with the secondary part are projected. This calls for a broad reasoning attitude ... (Brown ed. 1992, 66).

We see that the ‘primary movement’ is omitted. As mentioned above, the main point in this passage is the projecting if orders. ‘Primary movement’ has no particular meaning beyond what it says. It is the ‘first part of the act’. It does not mean lengthening. This leaves us with only one case of ‘primary movement’ in Authorised Summaries, namely the one where it is explicitly linked with thoracic movement.

Where did it come from

Alexander never linked ‘primary movement’ with ‘lengthening’, ‘head forward and up’, or ‘primary control’, so who did? The source for these misinterpretations is probably Walter Carrington.(16) In Explaining the Alexander Technique he has this exchange with Sean Carey:

SC: So the term 'primary control' is simply a later version of the 'primary movement'? 

WC: Yes, absolutely. … (Carrington/Carey 1992, p. 109).(17)

In two other instances he explains ‘the primary movement’ to be ‘up’. This could be where Williamson's ‘lengthening’ comes from.(18)

[...] since the force of gravity perpetually operates in a downward direction, the primary movement required is a counteractive force in an upwards direction (Carrington 1996, p. 225).(19)

In Man’s Supreme Inheritance, F.M. talks about the primary movement, and the primary movement is, of course, up. I remember so well being struck by it when I first read it. The primary movement is up. You initiate the movement by undoing the catch, by taking the brake off (Carrington 1994, p. 32).

It is a bit strange that Carrington gives two different explanations for ‘primary movement’. If he had asked Alexander himself, he would very likely have stuck to the one explanation he got, and he would very likely have quoted Alexander. He never does. This indicates that these are Walter Carrington's own misinterpretations of Alexander's books. Note that he says: ‘... when I first read it’.

Many Alexander Technique teachers have contributed to spreading misinformation about primary movement being the forerunner to the primary control, or that it means lengthening. I'm afraid I will have to include myself on that list.(20)

These misterpretations have become widely accepted in the Alexander Technique community. How could this happen? We can read, can't we?

How we got here

I believe there are several reasons for the current situation. The Alexander technique is a skill handed down from person to person. We come to rely on tradition, and the teachings of senior teachers. We are not in the habit of questioning these teachings.

Alexander himself is regarded with reverence, in some quarters almost as infallible. Most people today would think of the diaphragm, not the thorax as having the ‘motive power’ in breathing. That Alexander had another view is not even considered.

Senior teachers have admonished us to ‘read the books!’ I have the impression that most teachers don't, and if we do we have great difficulties avoiding reading the text through the lens of a modern understanding of the Alexander Technique. This goes especially for Alexander's early writings.

Last but not the least there has generally been a lack of scientific and critical thinking in the Alexander Technique community. We like to say that the Alexander Technique is scientifically sound, but our thinking and our professional discussions are not.

Conclusions

Alexander's ‘true primary movement’ is thoracic movement in breathing. In other activities, other movements can be regarded as ‘primary’. As far as we know, Alexander never said or wrote that the primary movement was lengthening or the head going forward and up. Neither did he indicate that primary movement was the precursor to primary control. The organising principles in Alexander's early work were ‘antagonistic action’ and ‘positions of mechanical advantage’. ‘Primary movement’ is unlikely to have played a role in the evolution of the concept of ‘primary control’.(21)

Defining ‘lengthening’ as ‘the primary movement’ is logical, and makes sense when explaining the Alexander Technique. But attributing this definition to Alexander is wrong. We Alexander Technique teachers should stop doing that. Unless new evidence occurs we should also refrain from claiming ‘primary movement’ to be the precursor to ‘primary control’.(22)

This article was extended and re-edited in July 2022, and updated 26 July 2024.

With time I have come to disagree with some of my conclusions. My view now is that ‘primary movement’ could be regarded as one of the forerunners (but not “the” precursor) to Primary Control, together with concepts like ‘positions of mechanical advantage’ and ‘antagonistic action’. I tend to agree with Sean Fischer who points out that the primary movement could be seen as having a controlling influence on subsequent movements (Fischer 2022, p.387).

Related blog articles

A Dark Chapter

The Lost Element

An Advantageous Position

The Nobel Disease

Notes

1) The Theory and Practice of a New Method of Respiratory Re-Education was republished in Articles and Lectures (Fischer ed. 1995, p.51; Fischer ed. 2022, p.89).

2) In the third edition of Articles and Lectures, Fischer moderates his comment by introducing a caveat, adding ‘if’ and ‘then’. 

If the "primary movement" is the movement which precedes other movements and which therefore provides the controlling factor in influencing subsequent movements, then it can be regarded as a precursor for the term "primary control" (Fischer 2022, p.387).

3) A few examples of other Alexander teachers who have defined primary movement as ‘lengthening’ or ‘going up,’ or as ‘primary control’ are: Walter Carrington (Carrington 1994, p.32); John Nicholls (Nicholls/Carey 1991, p. 67, p.69; Marjean McKenna (McKenna 2017, p.85); Cris Raff (Raff 2001, p.13); Bob Lada (Lada 2019, p.149).

4) Williamson writes in the Alexander Journal 28 that: ‘Despite a degree of ambiguity, however, the words ‘together with’ most likely indicate that the‘specific acts’ in breathing are to be combined with the ‘true primary movement’’ (Williamson, 2021b. p.81). Williamson disregards the preceding sentence.

He is right that there is a degree of ambiguity. Alexander connects ‘a proper knowledge and practical employment of the true primary movement in each and every act,’ not only to the alternate expansions and contractions of the thorax, but also to the ‘positions of mechanical advantage’ which facilitates the movements. Another potential source for ambiguity is Alexander's use of primary movement in singular. A possible interpretation is that the contraction and expansion of the thorax can be seen as elements of a single cyclic movement. Alexander is not consistent as he uses primary movement in both singular and plural in the article. Another possibility is that only one of these, ‘the proper expansion’, is the ‘true primary movement’ (Alexander 1996, p.200-201; Fischer ed. 1995, p.58; Fischer ed. 2022, p.96 ).

5) Actually four times, if we count the listing of ‘the primary, secondary, and other movements necessary to the proper performance of such act …’ (Fischer 1995, p.63 Alexander 1996, p.206).

6) Based on the quotes from the article it could be argued that Alexander means only one of these to be the true primary movement: the expansion of the thorax.

7) Williamson writes in the Alexander Journal 28 that: ‘Alexander’s meaning at the end of this passage might be considered ambiguous. Does he mean ‘the true primary movement in each and every act [in breathing]’ or the true primary movement in each and every act in general? Wider reading of his books brings us to the conclusion that he most probably means the latter’ (Williamson 2021a, p.12). Williamson gives no references to back his claim.

Jeroen Staring has also misinterprets ‘each and every act’. In an article from 2018 that directly addresses the issue of interpreting ‘the primary movement,’ he has this poetic, but still erroneous paragraph: ‘People breathe in and breathe out during each and every activity, they inhale and exhale since birth and keep on breathing in and out till their final breath. They inhale and exhale while sitting, while sleeping, while walking, while driving a car, while singing, etc., and yes: people even breathe while being in an inverted position or when scuba diving, in other words, they breathe “in each and every act” of life’ (Staring, 2018, p.108).

8) The summaries were meant to be included in a book titled Alexander and the Doctors, detailing the South African libel case that Alexander recently had won. The book was never published. I wonder whether the book was planned in the euphoria after the verdict, but dropped when it was realised it was not entirely positive. The judgment contains for instance this passage: ‘The conclusion to which I come is that the defendants have shown that Mr Alexander is a quack in the sense that he makes ignorant pretence to medical skill; they have shown that many of the physiological reasons put forward are wrong; they have shown that in its claims to cure the system constitutes dangerous quackery; but in these matters they misrepresented the views of Mr Alexander and in showing how foolish were these views, which he did not put forward, they have in the article called him much more of a quack than they were entitled to do.’ Supreme Court of South Africa (Witwatersrand Local Division). Frederick Matthias Alexander versus Ernst Jokl, Eustace H. Cluve, Bernard M. Clarke. 19th February 1948, p.31-32.

https://www.mouritz.co.uk/Mouritzpdfs/judgmentalexandervsJokl1948.pdf

9) Fischer in his comment in Articles and Lectures argues that ‘… “true primary movement” is different from “primary movement”: the former denotes the primary control, the movement which precedes other movements irrespective of our attempts to move other parts first; the latter denotes what we “do” first …’ (Fischer (ed) 1995, p.282). I can't find any arguments in favour of this claim in the text. Alexander's use of the word ‘true’ does not seem to imply a change of meaning of the term it precedes. We have for instance no reason to believe that ‘true motive power’ is different from ‘motive power’. [The argument is omitted in the third edition of Articles and Lectures (Fischer 2022, p.386-387)].

10) In the article ‘Theory and Practice of a New Method’ there is this sentence which the head of my teacher training, John Nicholls; often cited: ‘There is such immediate improvement in the pose of the body and poise of the …’. Here John would stop and ask the students for the next word. Invariably the answer would be ‘head,’ while the correct answer is of course ‘chest’ (Fischer 1995, p.64; Alexander 1996, p.207, Fischer ed. 2022, p.102). 

11) The quote seems to contradict one of Staring's main points about Alexander's early work presented in his biography on Alexander (Staring 2005).

12) It is important to note that these principles seem primarily to relate to the functioning of the thorax and the act of breathing. There are indications that the rest of the body was indirectly involved. How and to what degree is an interesting question. Frank Pierce Jones regarded the term  ‘position of mechanical advantage’ as the precursor to primary control:

In The Use of the Self, the term position of mechanical advantage” is replaced by “primary control,” a different concept altogether (Jones 1997, p. 46)

13) Alexander's ‘true primary movement’ is most closely related to ‘widening of the back’:

THE PUPIL WILL NOW BE ASKED TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE TORSO IN THIS WAY, CONTINUING TO REHEARSE HIS ORDERS, whilst the teacher so adjusts the torso that the large " lifting " muscles of the back will be employed co-ordinately with the other parts of the organism in bringing about such use of the respiratory mechanisms that they will function to the maximum at the particular stage of development reached from day to day. Success in this part of the evolution will bring about a change in the condition of the back which would be described by the ordinary observer as a " widening of the back." 

These orders are the means whereby such use of the mechanisms may be brought about, associated with a satisfactory readjustment of the back, as will cause the floating ribs to move freely, and also tend to develop the maximum intra-thoracic capacity and to establish the most effective use of the respiratory mechanism during the sleeping as well as the waking hours (Alexander 2004, p.120).

14) Another interpretation of the quote from CCC is possible if we allow ourselves some interpretative freedom. In CCC, ‘primary movement’ means the first part of an ‘evolution’. What if we say that Alexander's preventive orders constitute an evolution? In the chapter Illustration containing the description of ‘hands on the back of a chair’ Alexander gives the orders as: 

‘... order the neck to relax, to order the head forward and up to lengthen the spine ...’ (Alexander 2004, p.115). It seems that ‘head forward and up’ is the first movement, but the two first orders could be seen as a means to achieve lengthening, Alexander writes in the same chapter: ‘... in the place of ordering his [the pupils] neck to relax, his head forward and up, in order to secure the necessary lengthening, he will actually throw his head back, stiffen his neck, and tend to shorten his spine by unduly curving it ...’ (Alexander 2004, p.116).

If we allow ourselves some interpretative freedom, we can find material in Alexander books for

arguing that ‘lengthening’ can be seen as the primary movement. A bit contrived, maybe, and not what Alexander meant, but possible.

15) Moshe Feldenkrais has a very fitting name for these unwanted movements, calling them ‘parasitic’.

16) Another source could be Louise Morgan's 1955 book Inside Yourself. She quotes Alexander's Man's Supreme Inheritance, but inserts new text without indicating the change. I have put the added text in square brackets.

The whole physiology of walking is, indeed, perfectly simple when once the fundamental principles are understood. It is really resolved into the primary movements of [keeping one's length ("spine lenghtening") and] allowing the body to incline forward from the ankle on which the weight is supported and then preventing oneself from falling by allowing the weight to be taken in turn by the foot which has been advanced (Morgan 2010 p.136; Alexander 1996 p.72; Alexander 2021 p.235)

George Trevelyan, more or less a contemporary of Carrington, also believed primary movement was what later became the primary control, but he most probably had this from Edvard Maisel since he inserts ‘and’ between true and primary, a misquotation committed by Maisel, (see note 18). 

He knew that he had found the true and primary movement for each and every act. He came to call it the "primary control". (Trevelyan 1991). 

17) In The Act of Living, Carrington talks about the primary movement in more general terms, but the meaning here also seems to be that it means the primary control.

In Man’s Supreme Inheritance, if you comb through it very carefully, you will find that Alexander uses the phrase “the primary movement.” Alexander wasn't concerned with the anatomy or physiology of the primary movement, but he was very much concerned with the practical reality that if a primary movement wasn‟t taking place, then his breathing was interfered with, his voice interfered with, and all sorts of things were going wrong. (Carrington 1999, p. 79).

18) Edward Maisel, in the foreword to his anthology of Alexander's writings, The Alexander Technique: The Essential Writings of F. Matthias Alexander, (originally titled The Resurrection of the Body), states that the ‘true and primary movement’ is ‘vertebral lengthening in activity’ (Maisel, 1990, p.xxvii). It is not unlikely that Walter Carrington was the inspiration for this misinterpretation. Maisel misquoted Alexander by inserting an ‘and’ between true and primary, a mistake picked up by George Trevelyan. Alexander Farkas is another Alexander Technique teacher who repeatedly makes this mistake (Farkas 2019, p.48, p.82.) (See also Staring 2005 p.377 and Staring 2018, p.113, note 4).

19) Carrington is not physically correct.  We have to push down to go up against gravity. 

20) Jeroen Staring points to teachers trained by Carrington. He is probably right, I am from that lineage myself. 

It is a fact that Alexander Technique teachers trained by Carrington are indeed actively propagating those views in their own writings ... (Staring 2018, p.111).

21) An indication of this is the exclusions of the term in Brown's abridged versions of Alexander's books.

22) People perhaps believe ‘primary control’ comes from ‘primary movement’ because both contain the word primary. But Alexander used the word about almost anything. Skimming through Alexander's books, this is some of what he labels primary:

Argument, activity, appeal, application, assumption, causation, cause/causes, congenital difference, control, desire/desires, experiences, factor/factors, functions, idea, importance, impulses, influence, law, misconception, movement/movements, need, object, order/orders, part of the act/process, part played [by the head-neck relationship in activity], point [of article], principle/principles, procedure, projection [of orders], psycho-physical factors, reflexes, response, responsibility, sense,  understanding. 

Literature

Alexander, FM. 1985 (1932). The Use of the Self. Victor Gollancz.

Alexander, FM. 1996 (1918). Man's Supreme Inheritance. Mouritz

Alexander, FM. 2004 (1923). Consctructive Conscious Control of the Individual. Mouritz.
Alexander, F.M. (2021) Man’s Supreme Inheritance (1910), Addenda (1911), Conscious Control (1912): Facsimile of First Editions of Books on the F. M. Alexander Technique. Mouritz.
Brown, Ron (ed). 1992. Authorised Summaries of F.M. Alexander's Four Books. STATBooks.

Carrington, W.; Carey, S. 1992. Explaining the Alexander Technique. The Sheildrake Press.

Carrington, Walter. 1994. Thinking Aloud. Mournum Time Press.
Carrington, Walter. (1996). Beyond Words. In J. Sontag (ed.), Curiosity Recaptured: Exploring Ways We Think and Move (pp. 223-228). San Francisco: Mornum Time Press.

Daily Express. (1904. October 19). The Lady of the Deep C, p.5.

https://www.mouritz.co.uk/Mouritzpdfs/ladydeepc.1904.pdf

Fischer, Sean (ed.). 1995. Articles and Lectures. Mouritz.
Fischer, Sean (ed.). 2022. Articles and Lectures. (Third edition). Mouritz.

Jones, Frank P. 1997. Freedom to Change. Mouritz.

Lada, Bob. 2019. ‘Teaching Alexander from 'Yes'.’ In P. Marsh, (ed.), The Congress Papers: Advancing Global Perspectives. 11th International Congress 2018, Chicago. STAT Books.

Maisel, Edward (ed). 1990. The Alexander Technique: The Essential Writings of F. Matthias Alexander. Thames and Hudson.

McKenna, Marjean. 2017. Your Natural Up. Selfpublished.
Morgan, Louise (2010) Inside Youself: A New Way to Health Based on the Alexander Technique. Mouritz.
Murray, Alex. 2015. Alexander's Way. Alexander Technique Center, Urbana.

Raff, Chris. 2001. First steps to Alexander Technique. Axiom Publishing.

Farkas, Alexander. 2019. Alexander Technique: Arising from Quiet. Hite Books.

Staring, J. 2005. Frederick Matthias Alexander 1869-1955: The Origins and History of the Alexander Technique. Nijmegen: Integraal.

Staring, Jeroen. 2018. ‘Frederick Matthias Alexander, Born 150 Years Ago, on January 20, 1869. A Fierce Comment Regarding Interpretations of Alexander’s Texts by Alexander Technique Teachers.’  Case Studies Journal. ISSN (2305-509X) – Volume 7, Issue 12–Dec-2018.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330158936_Frederick_Matthias_Alexander_Born_150_Years_Ago_on_January_20_1869_A_Fierce_Comment_Regarding_Interpretations_of_Alexander's_Texts_by_Alexander_Technique_Teachers

Supreme Court of South Africa (Witwatersrand Local Division). Frederick Matthias Alexander versus Ernst Jokl, Eustace H. Cluve, Bernard M. Clarke. 19th February, 1948.

https://www.mouritz.co.uk/Mouritzpdfs/judgmentalexandervsJokl1948.pdf

Trevelyan, George. 1991. Exploration into God. Online version: https://www.sirgeorgetrevelyan.org.uk/books/thtbk-ExplGod00.html

Vineyard, M (ed). & Fischer (ed), S. 2020. F. M. Alexander: Letters, Volume II, 1943-1955. Mouritz.

Williamson, Malcolm. 2021a. ‘How did the concept of 'primary control evolve during Alexander's lifetime?’ In Alexander Journal 28, spring 2021. STAT.

Williamson, Malcolm. 2021b. ‘Lengthening and widening and Alexander's 'secret'.’ In Alexander Journal 28, spring 2021. STAT.

Hvor er du på vei?

Alexanderteknikken handler ikke om hva du gjør, men hvordan du gjør det. Alexanderteknikken handler heller ikke om å gjøre ting riktig. Det finnes endeløst antall «riktige» måter å gjøre noe på. Teknikken går ut på å unngå det som er unødvendig. Du vil da ende opp med den beste måten å gjøre noe på under de rådende omstendigheter. 

Eksperiment
I timene, og ellers også, lønner det seg å forholde seg til hver bevegelse eller aktivitet som om det er et eksperiment. Et eksperiment vet du aldri helt hvordan kommer til å gå, du er nysgjerrig på resultatet og åpen for hva som kan skje. Et negativt resultat kan være minst like lærerikt som et positivt.

To feil
Det er to feil du kan komme til å gjøre når du har timer i Alexanderteknikken. Noen Alexanderteknikk-elever blir veldig opptatt av om en bevegelse gikk «bra» eller «dårlig». Det er jo naturlig å ønske et positivt resultat, men vi må forsøke å ha en vitenskapelig innstilling. Resultatet har verdi enten det er positivt eller negativt så lenge det betyr at du oppdaget noe nytt. (Folk som ikke har peiling på forskning og vitenskap tror et negativ resultat betyr at eksperimentet er mislykket). 

Den andre feilen det er lett å gjøre er å bli for opptatt av hva du nettopp gjorde. Hvis det du gjorde var «bra» er det fristende å forsøke å holde på den gode følelsen (noe som er fullstendig bortkastet); og hvis det du gjorde var «dårlig» har noen mennesker lett for å bruke tid og krefter på enten å unnskylde seg selv, eller dømme seg selv, (igjen fullstendig bortkastet). Du behøver bare å slå fast hva du oppdaget, om du oppdaget noe, og så gå videre. 

Alexanderteknikk-lærer Tommy Thompson definerer Alexanderteknikkens prinsipp om «inhibition» som «witholding definition», å la være å definere. Det passer veldig fint i denne sammenhengen. 

Hvor skal du nå?
Tenk deg at du er ute og kjører bil, eller går eller sykler. Forestill det at du hele tiden tenker over veien du nettopp har tilbakelagt. Du vurderer din egen innsats og valgene du gjorde. En slik bruk av tanke og oppmerksomhet er uhensiktsmessig og ganske slitsomt i lengden. Jeg antar at det er ikke slik du pleier å gjøre når du er ute og kjører, eller sykler eller går. Men det er i praksis det noen gjør i Alexanderteknikk-timene. 

I en Alexanderteknikk-time bør du ha samme innstilling som når du er ute i trafikken. Du er mest opptatt av det du møter her og nå. Du er klar over veien du har tilbakelagt. Kanskje du vet at du skulle valgt en annen fil før ei rundkjøring, men du bruker ikke tid på å gruble på det. Det som betyr noe er: hvor er du på vei nå? 

Neste skritt
Hvis du for eksempel i en time nettopp har reist deg opp fra en stol, er det neste du skal gjøre det du bør være mest opptatt av. Skal du sette deg ned igjen? Skal du ta noen skritt, eller gjøre noe annet, eller bare stå der? Det er intensjonen om handling du må forholde deg til, og som har betydning for hvordan du organiserer deg selv. Det at du nettopp reiste deg fra stolen lærte du kanskje noe av, men det er en avsluttet handling. Er du for opptatt av det du nettopp gjorde, lever du i fortiden og ikke her og nå. Nå skal du gjøre en ny bevegelse. Om du reiste deg opp aldri så harmonisk og elegant og balansert vil det ikke hjelpe stort, for nå må du ta nye valg. Det er det du gjør nå som betyr noe. 

Relaterte blogginnlegg

Kjenne veldig godt etter

Tenke, ikke føle

My Barstow Project

This is an updated version of an article I wrote in 2009. It is written for Alexander Technique teachers.

My background as an Alexander teacher is from what one can label as «Carrington-style» teaching. When reading about the Alexander Technique, both on the internet and in books and articles, I've come across quite a lot of teachers who has been influenced by Marjorie Barstow. Her style of teaching seemed to require a more active role for the pupil. Since the pupil's independence from the teacher should be the aim of any pedagogy I found this interesting. I decided to have a closer look at Marjorie Barstow's teaching.

I found a short tv film from 1982 on the internet, and 33 clips from a 1990 workshop on Youtube. These are my thoughts after having watched this material over a period of time.

Marjorie Barstow

One thing that is obvious after having studied Barstow is that she certainly was a great teacher. She knew what she was doing, and why. It is also interesting to study her own movements. In the workshop clips she is marked by osteoporosis and is bent over, but if you study her balance, the movements of her body, arms and legs, she is still in total command of herself. In the tv film from Nebraska in 1982 she is already 83, but disregard her face, and she could have been 18, her movements are that soft and elegant.

Touching a little

It is said about Barstow that she was «touching a little, asking a lot». I found that she was indeed asking a lot, but she was touching a lot as well. In fact, she was touching more or less all the time! Now and then she was discussing with the pupil with hands off, but that's something I would do from time to time myself.

I could see that she had an exceptional high level of skill. On many occasions you can literally see the pupil go up. Her use of hands was non-invasive in that she didn't take much (or any?) of the pupil's weight, which some teachers sometimes do, and which leaves the pupil very passive.

But I couldn't see that she was using her hands much different from any experienced teacher, so what was the difference in her approach?

Words and touch

When observing how she matched words with the use of hands I noticed that when she asked the pupil to think/direct she very often said 'this' instead of using the name of that part of the body: 'this', 'here', 'this way'.

Maybe using a word like 'arm' is experienced by somebody as 'that' arm, an object apart from oneself, whereas just saying 'this' combined with touch more intimately connects to the pupil's immediate experience of her/himself without having to 'translate' the meaning of the word into bodily understanding; a translation process which could be influenced by wrong mental concepts.

Asking a lot

Barstow did ask a lot of questions. Especially she asked: «How does that feel», or «What did you notice»?

These are questions that would make the 'orthodox' Alexander teachers bolt. Feelings are unreliable and not to be trusted. But we feel what we feel anyway, so why not have a conscious attitude towards it

Potentially there could be two problems with asking pupils what they feel. One is that the pupil will try to feel something. Then you will often see them move very slowly and heavily. The other problem is the pupils trying to come up with the right answer, trying to please the teacher. I had the impression of this happening a few times in the clips.

But there are advantages with describing experiences. Putting words to experiences makes the pupil pay attention and engage in the learning process. Describing nuances makes the pupil more skilled at observing subtle changes. Even if feelings themselves are unreliable, the changes we can notice in our feelings are real. And most importantly, asking the pupil is the only way for a teacher to know what is going on in the pupil's head. If what the pupil is describing is clearly wrong from what is happening, it is an opportunity to put out the mirror and let the pupil see for him-/herself that the change was real but that the interpretation was wrong.

There are two things to be clear about: when it is alright to focus on feelings, and the distinction between thinking (directing) and feeling.

It is perfectly alright to be aware of one's sensation during and after movement, as long as one is not seeking the 'right feeling'. Marjory Barlow said something about this at the 1999 Congress in Freiburg: 'If you think you're wrong - which is most of the time - give yourself the stimulus to move. Then you'll get the experience in the movement. Otherwise we are just feeling out' (The Congress Papers p.149).

Once I heard a teacher say: «the feelings are the directions», a statement I totally disagree with. But some people think kinaesthetically and to them this could be an accurate description of what they perceive is going on.

Discussing with the pupil what they actually were thinking at a certain point in time would make them aware the fact that it was their thoughts that actually made the good thing happen, and that the feeling was an effect, not the cause. It will also make them aware that they have got the ability to 'think for themselves'.

What do you want to do

Another question Barstow asked a lot was: What do you want to do? This is an excellent question. By having the pupil decide the activity, the pupil 'owns' it and has responsibility for it, and also chooses something of interest to the pupil and so are more likely to implement in daily life. This leads to a stronger motivation for observing, and learning.

Very interestingly not a single person in the thirty-three clips from the workshop chose to stand up or sit down. Sitting was an issue, and someone was interested in bending down, but not the act of sitting down or getting up. Why is that?

Maybe the act of sitting down/getting up is something that happens so quickly in daily life that it is normally something people don't think very much about. And because it is a rather quick movement there is little time for observation.

We should think about this as Alexander teachers. Although using the movement up from and down to the chair is very useful in the lesson, for several reasons, it is NOT the easiest activity for pupils to use for practising applying the Technique to their daily life. This does not mean that the chair shouldn't be used in the lesson, far from it. What I'm saying is that we should be conscious about WHY we use the chair when we use it in the lesson. And that other activities are important to work on to help the pupil implement the Technique in daily life.

Direction = movement

In the film Barstow is asked what the Alexander Technique is. She is almost taken off guard and answers: 'it is a certain type of movement.'

I'm not sure that I agree with that definition. I would say the aim is quality of movement, but not that the Technique itself is a particular type of movement. This links probably to Barstow's view on direction. She seems to equate direction with movement.

Personally I would say directions might lead to movement, but the directions themselves are messages we send. Saying the directions are movements may increase the risk of 'doing' them. It also misses out on the inhibitory aspect of directions. Directions are, and must be first of all, preventive.

I think it is more precise to define the directions as intention for movements. These are movements we are not able to perform directly. Movement is to some extent necessary for the brain to make sense of what we feel and to organize the body. Having the intention to move activates processes that makes the musculoskeletal system available for recalibration. The brain uses the input from movement to update the internal body map. Giving directions could be updating the brains body map and thus prepare the body for efficient movement.

End note

There are lots of videos about teaching the Alexander Technique on the internet. This can be a source for inspiration and new ideas, especially, I think, if you have look at teachers who teach differently from yourself. The videos of Marjorie Barstow teaching are useful because they are from situations where the observer is supposed to be watching and listening and learning. I think there is much to learn from observing her, even if one doesn't agree with everything she said or did.

*I could no longer find the link to the film from 1982 mentioned above. You can find many videos with Marjorie Barstow teaching on Youtube. You can also find both video and audio resources on this websites which is dedicated to her work:

https://www.marjoriebarstow.com

Related articles

Chained to the Chair

Online Teaching

Klingende Alexanderteknikk

Alexanderteknikken har mye til felles med musikk. Jeg har tidligere skrevet om hvordan det å lære Alexanderteknikk kan ligne det å lære å spille et instrument.

Det er også andre likheter. En kollega i Nederland, som også er fiolinist og Alexander-lærer, sa det slik i et intervju: 

The Alexander Technisque is like music. If you don’t play it, it can’t be heard … and it as to be put into practice, integrated and remembered over and over again to really enjoy its full potential (Kleinman 2021, s.19).

Alexanderteknikken er noe vi bruker i praksis. Hvis vi ikke benytter oss av teknikken har vi heller ikke full nytte av den. 

Til å begynne med er det ikke alltid lett å huske at vi (alltid) har muligheten. Musikere øver hver dag, og som jeg var inne på i et tidligere blogginnlegg er det nyttig å øve Alexanderteknikk litt hver dag også. Noe som kan være spesielt nyttig er å øve på å tenke retning. Jeg leste nylig ei introduksjonsbok hvor det stod følgende historie om en Alexanderteknikk-elev:

She decided that when she got up in the mornings, she would continue with her usual activities, but for just five minutes every day she would project her directions without attempting to ‘‘do’’ them. Sometimes she would simply lie in bed and project her directions. Sometimes she would exercise. Sometimes she would put in a load of laundry. The nature of her activity wasn’t important. What was important was that she made a deal with herself that, whatever she did, for at least a short period of time, every day, she would give herself directions ... She figured that ... if she did it in the mornings, her obligation would be satisfied early and she wouldn’t have to feel guilty if she didn’t ‘‘think’’ for the rest of the day.

When she started this experiment, she did have trouble projecting her orders for five whole minutes at a time. She would become distracted or bored or just plain tired of ‘‘thinking’’ in this way. As the days and weeks passed while she continued her practice every morning, however, she noticed that she had developed another problem: she couldn’t stop thinking this way after just five minutes.

As time passed, she noticed she was getting more and more done when she first got up. The quality of her work was improving. And, every time she looked at the clock to see how much of the required five minutes was left, she found that she had already exceeded them – often by large amounts of time. More to the point, she found it harder and harder not to ‘‘think’’ in this way at other times as well. (Weed 2004, s.119).

Du kommer langt med litt øvelse.

En annen parallell mellom AT og musikk er at det er mye enklere å lære å spille når du får hjelp av en lærer. Alle kan lære seg selv å spille litt på egen hånd. Men du kommer mye lengre med profesjonell instruksjon. En lærer kan la deg høre hvordan det kan låte og veilede deg til å oppnå klangen du ønsker. 

En lærer er enda viktigere i Alexanderteknikken. Teknikken endrer helt grunnleggende vaner og du kan ikke på forhånd vite hvordan det vil «låte». Vi er så blind for disse vanene at vi ikke er klar over dem. Du kan kjenne effekten gjennom anspenthet og smerter i nakke, skuldre, rygg eller andre steder. En Alexanderteknikk-lærer vil kunne gi deg opplevelse og erfaring med hvordan livet kan være uten disse vanene. Og enda viktigere - veilede deg i hvordan du mestrer dem på egen hånd. 

Det er først når du tar Alexanderteknikken i bruk at du får virkelig nytte av den. Med Alexanderteknikken fjerner du det som skurrer slik at du oppnår mer harmoni i dagliglivet. 

Relaterte blogginnlegg

Samklang

Pauser 

Litt hver dag 

Litteratur

Kleinman, Judith. 2021. «The Developing Self Interview», Statnews September 2021, Vol II issue 3, s.16-19.

Weed, Donald L. 2004 (1990). What You Think is What You Get. ITM Publications.

Online teaching

This article is written for Alexander Technique teachers. 

Teaching Alexander Technique in groups was not an accepted method of teaching some years back. It was said that it was 'not possible' to learn the Alexander Technique in a group setting. Things have moved on from that time. Today there is more openness to the use of different methods of teaching.*

Now we have even gone a step further. Due to the restriction during the Covid-19 pandemic many Alexander Technique teachers have tried out online teaching. This is met with a lot of skepticism from teachers who are inclined to a more traditional approach.

The misconception

The critique against group teaching used to come from the teachers not very well acquainted with this way of teaching. This is as expected, of course. Ironically, this tended to be the same people who would argue that you have to experience an Alexander Technique lesson to understand what the technique is about. This is a misconception. It is perfectly possible to explain in words what the Alexander Technique is. All you need is common sense. What you can't explain is what the consequences of learning the Alexander Technique will be for you personally, and in particular the effect you will experience in a hands-on Alexander lesson.

One reason for the misconception is that the Alexander Technique is equated with using the hands as a teaching method. There is good reason, and tradition, for this as Alexander himself did not make any distinction between the technique and the method of teaching it. It was all his 'work'. I think, however, that we as a profession should make a distinction between the Technique and the methods of teaching it.

The Alexander Technique is what the teacher is thinking, and the way the pupil ultimately is learning to think, not what the teacher is doing with his/her hands, and it is not the feeling experienced by the pupil. The experience from hands-on teaching, despite being valuable, and even invaluable to some degree, does not guarantee the ability to apply the Alexander Technique on your own.

It is somewhat of a paradox that the Alexander Technique, which basically is a mental process, came to be dependent upon a method of teaching based on feeling.

The Technique and the methods of teaching it

If we take as our reference Alexander's story in the chapter 'The evolution of a technique' in The Use of the Self it is clear that the Alexander Technique is about inhibition, direction and making choices. That is what the stutterer and the golfer are to learn in later chapters of the book. Alexander also gives a general description of his method of teaching.

However, as long as the pupil learn to inhibit and direct, it should be irrelevant what method is used to achieve this. You do what is needed according to the person(s) in front of you and their situation, their interests and problems. You use whatever means you deem appropriate, or whichever means that are available to you, and make the best out of it.

Pros and cons

Every method of teaching has its advantages and its limitations. Alexander Technique teaching is no exception. Many Alexander teachers have commented on online teaching during the last year and a half. I'm not going to go into details here, but my general impression is that many of the teachers who have tried online teaching have found it more useful than maybe expected. Many have also of course written about the limitations of the online approach.

What is missing in my opinion in the professional debate about the pros and cons of online teaching is a balanced appraisal from its proponents. After all they are the ones with the most experience and knowledge about teaching online. But they seem to belong to a church were the belief the in the method is without reservations. I don't know if they actually don't reflect on their teaching, or if they are just naive. I don't think it is dishonesty.

Online teaching is here to stay, whether we like it or not, and to ensure the development of the best possible use of this teaching possibility, we, as a profession need to build on facts, not beliefs. Then we need informed input from the teachers with most experience.

Ultimately research is needed on the teaching method, but as not much research exist on traditional teaching either it will take time to build up research based knowledge.

Teacher training

The different teaching methods should be addressed in the training of Alexander Technique teachers. The most important element will always be the use of hands, because that is a skill that you can't learn anywhere else, and not something you really can learn on your own.

Any trained teacher can dabble in online teaching, or in the teaching of groups, without specific training. But why leave it to chance? Why not build on the expertise that has already been built up in the profession?

I had myself a very traditional teacher training. I'm satisfied with the training I had. It was high quality and gave me a good foundation to build on. But during the twenty years or so after finishing, I have several times met with situations where I felt the traditional Alexander Technique training had not given me adequate preparation. I'm thinking in particular about situations where the appropriateness or possibility to use touch is limited, as for instance when teaching children or teaching performers in activity. We did get some relevant experience, so I shouldn't blame my ineptitude solely on my training, but I wish we had more.

I can see several arguments in favour of covering online teaching in the training of teachers. First, it gives experience in applying the technique in relation to being online. An important aspect of training is to apply the technique in our own lives, being online should not be exempt. This also give us the necessary experience to better help our pupils.

Second, it includes training in taking care of oneself in the teaching situation. I don't have much experience from teaching online. But it was really striking to what degree I was forced to attend to my own use. In hands-on teaching, inhibiting and directing is to some degree an automatic process after years of training and teaching. Not so with online teaching where I felt I had to be even more conscious of myself.

Third, it will hone skills that come in useful needed when touch is not possible or not appropriate -  observing the pupil visually, and communicating verbally. This will probably also improve normal hands-on lessons.

Fourth, it gives added opportunity for contact and interaction with our pupils when a normal lesson is not possible. You never know, there could be another pandemic.

Professional debate

I trained to be an Alexander Technique teacher primarily to be able to communicate with my hands, very much as I once trained to be a violinist to be able to communicate through music. Teaching without touching is for me like teaching music without playing. Something is missing.

I would probably never had many lessons, let alone decided to train, if the lessons had been online, or in a group for that matter. Still, I think online lessons have their place.

I'm lucky to be an Alexander Technique teacher living in Norway. Except from a month's time in March-April 2020 we have been able to teach more or less as normal. Of course, there has been less activity, and far between new pupils. I did give some lessons online during lockdown. I had some experience already from teaching one person who lived far away, but this was only a few lessons. I felt it did work OK, and I'm willing to teach online if the situation requires it, but it is not something I'm going to do a lot. I think I'm a much better teacher 'hands-on.'

That I'm not particularly good at it, or that I'm not particularly keen on it, does not, I hope, influence my ability to see both the pros and cons of online teaching. I expect the same from colleagues who do it better than me. That's what is needed if we are going to have a useful professional debate on the issue of online Alexander Technique teaching.

*The May issue of STATnews in 2017 was to a large extent dedicated to material on working with groups.

Related blog articles

Chained to the chair

Literature

Alexander, Frederick Matthias. 1985. The Use of the Self. Victor Gollancz.