Thinking, “giving” or “sending” directions is one of the basic principles of the Alexander Technique. Directions are primarily preventive, and aimed at facilitating efficient organisation of the musculoskeletal system.
Directions can take many forms depending on the person and on the situation. In a recent blog post “Directing the neck, or not” I pointed out that the directions often are described as intentions for movement. As soon as we intend to move, processes kicks in that prepares the body for the impending challenge to our balance. This facilitates changes in the organisation of muscular tensions.
F.M Alexander wrote this about directions in his second book, Constructive Conscious Control:
Another difficulty which pupils make for themselves is in connexion with the giving of guiding orders or directions. They speak sometimes as if it were a strange and new thing to ask them to give themselves orders, forgetting that they have been doing this subconsciously from their earliest days, else they would not be able to stand up without help, much less move about. The point that is new in the scheme we are considering is that the pupil is asked consciously to give himself orders, … (Alexander 2004 p.104).
There is nothing mystical about directions. Directions are intentions, and we intend to do something more or less all day long. The difference is that in the Alexander Technique we do it consciously, and, since the basic directions are primarily preventive, we don't perform the intended actions.
One problem with teaching and learning conscious direction is that people are different. Given the same instruction they will think in different ways. Since directions necessarily are formulated in words, some make the mistake of equating the words with the directions. The words are only descriptions. (Using new words doesn't necessarily mean you have invented a new way of directing yourself). If you do a movement, for instance if you stand up, you could formulate your intention verbally to yourself, but normally you don't. Your intention is beyond words.
Thinking the words, or saying the words out loud, may be helpful, not the least to keep the directions going, but at some point this will be practically impossible. Also, saying the words doesn't necessarily mean you are directing. Thinking about something and having an intention for doing it may be two different things.
Patrick Macdonald writes about his difficulties of finding the right mode of thinking in The Alexander Technique As I See It:
In the early days of my studentship, I was much confused over the matter when A. R. Alexander, FM's brother, remarked to me, “Of course directions are doings, but they are very small. They are usually below the sense register.” This made the matter very much clearer for me, and I offer you AR's comment in the hope that it may do the same for you (Macdonald 2015 p.68).
(For the uninitiated - Macdonald was among the students at Alexander's first training course for teachers in the 1930s).
AR's instruction was apparently useful for Macdonald, who went on to be extremely skilled with his hands in teaching. For Macdonald, the instruction described the right mode of thinking. For others, such an instruction could be disastrous. The problem for most people is trying too hard and ending up doing more than just thinking the directions.
Walter Carrington, another of the first generation teachers, (teachers trained by Alexander), says in Thinking Aloud, a collection of talks:
It's all very well standing at the crossroads and seeing the signposts saying umpteen miles to Peking and thinking, “Yes, I don't know, it would be rather fun and I suppose if I went, that is the way I'd go.” …You can congratulate yourself that you are here and not in a whole lot of other places that you might be. But the fact of the matter is that you still haven't got going. And it's the getting going, and the continuing to go, that is the real problem in the Alexander Technique, as in life. Now, one very good way, in fact the only real way, of getting people going is to make them think …What's the best way of getting people to think? I'm afraid I don't know what the best way is (Carrington 1994 p.18) …You got to determine the direction first, admittedly, but then if there isn't the supply of energy, you won't get anything (ibid p.19).
In another talk he says:
Conscious direction of energy … that is what using yourself is all about – the conscious direction of energy. You clearly direct your energy by thinking about it. … When we just repeat the orders like the neck to be free, and the head to go forward and up, and the back to lengthen and widen, when we repeat them parrot fashion, there is really no energy at all being directed to the mechanism … (ibid p.23-24).
Carrington then quotes Alexander's definition of directions in a footnote in The Use of the Self, which Carrington says is “one of the most important things he ever put on paper” (ibid p.23):
When I employ the words ‘direction’ and ‘directed’ with ‘use’ in such phrases as ‘direction of my use’ and ‘I directed the use,’ etc., I wish to indicate the process involved in projecting messages from the brain to the mechanisms and in conducting the energy necessary to the use of these mechanisms (Alexander 2018 p.35).
As I pointed out in my article on “Vitalism in the Alexander Technique”, this definition of directions is rooted in vitalism. Vitalism is the belief that living beings are endowed with a special non-physical element, energy, or “life force.” The concept of “chi” is maybe the most well-known example. Some Alexander Technique teachers equate directions with chi (see for instance Farkas 2016 p.122, or Farkas 2019 p.29).
Alexander and Carrington probably found the idea of directing as sending or “conducting” energy to be practically helpful. To them, and probably many others, it inspired the right mode of thinking, just as AR's “doings below the sense register”. It is a description of movement, of internal movements. A parallel metaphor could be the idea of water or fluid moving through the body (Holladay 2012 p.131; Connington 2020 p.67). The problem with such metaphors is that, although they work perfectly well, it is not a correct representation of how the body works. Chi doesn't exist.
I'm in favour of using any idea that can help in the process of directing, no matter how weird or outlandish. But in the long term I think it is best to keep it as simple as possible and rid oneself of any superfluous or nonexistent elements.
We move about in our daily lives, “directing” ourselves subconsciously. Conscious direction doesn't need to be that much more complicated.
Related blog posts
Literature
Alexander, F.M. (2004) Constructive Conscious Control of the Individual. Mouritz.
Alexander, F.M. (2018) The Use of the Self. Orion Spring.
Carrington, Walter 1994 Thinking Aloud. Mournum Time Press.
Connington, Bill (2020) Introduction to the Alexander Technique: A Practical Guide for Actors (Acting Essentials). Methuen Drama.
Farkas, Alexander (2016) Tapping into the Well of Chi. In Gering-Hasthorpe, R. (ed), The Congress Papers 2015 (pp.121-122). STATBooks.
Farkas, Alexander (2019) Alexander Technique: Arising from Quiet. Hite Books.
Holladay, Sue (2012) Playing with Posture: Positive Child Development Using the Alexander Technique. HITE.Macdonald, Patrick (2015) The Alexander Technique As I See It. Mouritz.
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar