Directions - movement and energy

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

Directing the neck, or not

Vitalism in the Alexander Technique Part 1

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.

Oppmerksomhet i hverdagen

Alexanderteknikken er et hjelpemiddel til å gjøre det du gjør på en bedre måte. Du får best utbytte av teknikken om du kan integrere den i bevegelsene du gjør til daglig. Det krever en viss oppmerksomhet, og det kan være en utfordring. Det er en utfordring det er verd å ta. Alle de små og store bevegelsene du gjør hver dag har innvirkning på helsa, på godt og vondt.

Alminnelige bevegelser kan vi gjøre automatisk og uten å behøve å tenke på hvordan vi gjør dem. Godt er det. Noe annet ville vært fryktelig ineffektivt og slitsomt. Dagligdagse bevegelser gjør vi kjapt og greit. De går av seg selv.

Fordi vi styrer bevegelsene mer eller mindre ubevisst er det fort gjort å glemme å bruke Alexanderteknikken. Du har allerede gjort bevegelsen før du kommer på at du hadde muligheten.

For å bli vant til å være oppmerksom kan du prøve en enkel øvelse. Øvelsen går ut på å beskrive med ord for deg selv hva du er i ferd med å gjøre. Hvis du for eksempel åpner ei dør sier du inni deg: «åpner dør». Setter du deg ned sier du: «setter meg ned», tar du opp mobilen: «tar opp mobil».

Dette er nok til at du er litt mer oppmerksom og tilstede i det du gjør. Du skal ikke bry deg om kvaliteten på bevegelsene. Den er som den er. Dette skal være en enkel øvelse. Blir du for fokusert blir bevegelsene stive og langsomme. Da tenker du feil. Du skal fortsette å bevege deg akkurat som du pleier.

Denne øvelsen er ikke Alexanderteknikk, men å anvende teknikken krever like mye, eller lite, oppmerksomhet.

Du behøver ikke forhaste deg med å tenke Alexanderteknikk. Bli heller helt trygg og komfortabel med bare å være mer oppmerksom. Oppmerksomhet i seg selv kan gjøre at du lar være å bruke unødvendig med krefter. Ved hjelp av Alexanderteknikken blir bevegelsene enda mer dynamiske. Men er du oppmerksom er du allerede halvveis.

Relaterte blogginnlegg

Hvor er du?

Organisert oppmerksomhet

Fleksibelt fokus

Directing your neck (or not)

We all want a free neck. The negative consequences of a stiff neck are obvious, especially if it hurts. In the Alexander Technique we think about the neck all the time. The basic "directions" we use to organise ourselves in preparation for and during activity is traditionally formulated as: "Let the neck be free, to let the head go forward and up, to let the back lengthen and widen" (MacDonald 2015 p.68).

The neck direction is not like the other directions. "Head forward and up" and "back lengthen and widen" are directions for movement. "Neck free" is not.

The reason most directions are formulated as intentions for movement is probably because they have been found to work. Intentions for movement have a direct influence on the organisation of the musculoskeletal system. Any impending movement means a possible change in balance. All necessary processes will be up and running, making you prepared for the challenge, thereby creating a more dynamic condition.(1)

The directions are primarily preventive. "Head forward and up" is meant to prevent your head from going "back and down", which would tend to compress the body and make it less dynamic. "Neck free" is also preventive, maybe even more so as it is more general in nature.

If you ask somebody to think of letting their neck be "free" there is a good chance they either start wiggling the head about, or hold more on it to ensure nothing is happening in the neck. Trying to let the neck be "free" can go terribly wrong.

But it can also work wonderfully well. If you find a way of thinking that make you tense up the neck a little less, it can have a marked impact on the quality of your movements. This could take only a few minutes to learn and can happen in the beginning of the very first lesson.

Integrating the direction for the neck with the other directions could be a challenge. It is probably best to relate the neck direction to movement as well, more specifically the potential for movement. Alexander Technique teacher Schmuel Nelken put it this way:

… we allow the neck to be free – that is, we will not impose on it one movement or another, contraction or relaxation – it will be available for any possible movement (Nelken 2023, p.24).

Thinking of your "free neck" as a neck with potential for movement does make it possible to combine this idea with the head going up. Ideally, the wish for a free neck should be seamlessly part of the rest of the directions, part of the same idea of expansion, an element of a single gesture.

It takes time to get to this stage, and before the directions become integrated, allowing the neck to be free and having an intention for movement are two different modes of thinking. And thinking about two things at the same time is very often at least one thing too many.

Some teachers choose to skip the neck direction.(2)The rationale is that the head being able to move, or "going up" means you are letting the neck be free anyway. Even Alexander himself considered dropping the direction for the neck. Walter Carrington writes in his diary from 1946, published as A Time to Remember:

At tea FM said that he had, at last, decided that we must cut out in future teaching all instructions to order the neck to relax or to be free because such orders only lead to other forms of doing. If a person is stiffening the neck, the remedy is to get them to stop projecting the messages that are bringing about this condition and not to project messages to counter-act the effects of the other messages (Carrington 1996 p.59)(3)

Apparently Alexander Technique teachers did not stop instructing pupils to let their necks be free. Why is that?

The most important reason is probably that it works.(4) Another reason could be tradition. It was possibly with the order for the neck to be free that the Alexander Technique began. In 1894, in his first article to be published, Alexander praises a booklet by London voice teacher Charles Hartley:

… a little work called Natural Elocution, which all reciters and speakers should carefully "read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest." ("Elocution as an Accomplishment", Alexander 2022 p.3).(5)

Describing the orator's stance, Hartley says:

To produce a good voice, and to speak with ease, whether you stand or sit, the head should be erect, the muscles of the neck free, ... (Hartley n.d. p.5). (Alexander 2022 p.357)(6)

When Alexander first tried to solve his vocal problems, he found that he ' tended to:

… pull back the head, depress the larynx, and suck in breath through the mouth in such a way as to produce a gasping sound' (Alexander 2018 p.26).

He then found he could reduce these symptoms if he stopped pulling his head back, i.e. kept the neck "free". (Hartley also wrote that the head should be held erect. One could wonder if not Alexander also tried this more direct solution first).

Alexander writes in his account of the process in "The Evolution of a Technique" in The Use of the Self:

The importance of this discovery cannot be over-estimated, for through it I was led on to the further discovery of the primary control of the working of all the mechanisms of the human organism, and this marked the first important stage of my investigation (UoS 2018 p.28).

Alexander's story in The Use of the Self was of course written down with at least 35 years of hindsight, so it is not possible for us to know for sure to what degree Alexander's account is accurate. But it is not unlikely that the effect of not tensing the neck was his first step, and that Hartley led him on the way.

We all want a free neck. It is easy to forget that in the Alexander Technique a free neck is more of a means than an end in itself. If you avoid neck tension, the rest of the system is freer. Conversely, the neck can only be truly free within a well-coordinated system. Your neck can be free only to a certain extent if you are holding on to your legs, for instance.

A general awareness of the neck is helpful, both as a preparedness and for monitoring. But if your neck is already tense, it is not at all given that you can do anything about it directly. An indirect approach is best.(7)

It is also important to be pragmatic. How much one should focus on the neck itself at any given moment depends on the situation. In many situations it is probably best to keep the neck in the back of your mind and mind your head instead.(8)

Related blog posts

Fixed knees and fixed ideas

The wrong direction

Notes

(1) Some Norwegian physiotherapists have made use of this fact in their treatment of anxiety. The underlying theory is that planned movements stimulates brain networks to reintegrate and work together, reducing mental "chaos". I wrote a blog article about the method in 2010, https://alexanderteknikk.blogspot.com/2010/04/balansekoden.html (sorry, Norwegian only). There have been published studies on the method in English, for instance in the European Journal of Physiotherapy: Learning oriented physiotherapy (LOP) in anxiety and depression: an 18 months multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) <https://ntnuopen.ntnu.no/ntnu-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2675380/Bratberg.pdf> [accessed 23 September 2024].

(2) Among the teachers omitting the direction for the neck is (or was) maybe most notably Marjorie Barstow: 

“If you ask [Barstow] about the neck, “for example, “she’ll say, ‘The only way to free the neck is by moving the head’ (William Conable, in Cole 2022 p.89)

According to Amanda Cole, Barstow also discarded the direction "up": 

In the case of “forward,” she made sure her students understood what was meant, and in the case of “up,” she ceased using the word all together (Cole 2022 p.110).

(3) Some Alexander Technique teachers have used this quote as an argument for not giving directions at all. That is clearly a misinterpretation (or a misuse). Alexander meant the directions should be rephrased. The Carrington quote continues:

He said that the implied contradiction had worried him for a long time but, after working on Hallis this morning, he saw that it must be changed so all orders in future will be framed so as to emphasise 'non-doing' (Carrington 1996 p.59).

(4) There is some scientific evidence pointing in this direction: Proactive Selective Inhibition Targeted at the Neck Muscles: This Proximal Constraint Facilitates Learning and Regulates Global Control <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28026778/> [accessed 23 September 2024].

(5) Alexander uses the same quote in his second article, "Speech Culture and Natural Elocution", published the year after. Still enthusiastic about Hartley's work he adds the word "splendid" before "little work" (Alexander 2022 p.12). "… read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest" is from The Book of Common Prayer, and Alexander's source possibly P.T. Hill's The Oratorical Trainer. See notes 3 and 7 by Jean Fischer, page 358 in Alexander 2022.

(6) Natural Elocution by C.S. Hartley: http://www.alextechteaching.org.uk/Natural_Elocution_Hartley[3].pdf

(7) Alexander seems to have had a more indirect approach to a stiff neck early in his career: He writes in Man's Supreme Inheritance:

Let us take for example the case of a man who habitually stiffens his neck in walking, sitting, or other ordinary acts of life. This is a sign that he is endeavouring to do with the muscles of his neck the work which should be performed by certain other muscles of his body, notably those of the back. Now if he is told to relax those stiffened muscles of the neck and obeys the order, this mere act of relaxation deals only with an effect, and does not quicken his consciousness of the use of the right mechanism which he should use in place of those relaxed. The desire to stiffen the neck muscles should be inhibited as a preliminary (which is not the same thing at all as a direct order to relax the muscles themselves), … (Alexander 1996, s 59).

He gives a similar example in Constructive Conscicous Control of the Individual, (Alexander 2004, s 103).

(8) This is especiall true for emotionally challenging situations. The level of neck tension will increase, and any attempt at directly “freeing” the neck will mean fighting against yourself.


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

Alexander, F.M. (2004). Constructive Conscious Control of the Individual. Mouritz.

Alexander, FM (2018) The Use of the Self. Orion Spring.

Alexander, FM, Fischer J.M.O ed. (2022) Articles and Lectures: Articles, Published Letters and Lectures on the F.M. Alexander Technique. Mouritz.

Carrington, Walter (1996) A Time to Remember: Personal Diary of Teaching the F.M.Alexander Technique in 1946. The Sheildrake Press.

Cole, Amanda (2022) Marjorie Barstow and the Alexander Technique: Critical Thinking in Performing Arts Pedagogy. Palgrave Macmillan.

Macdonald, Patrick. McNamara (ed) (2015) The Alexander Technique as I See It. Mouritz.

Nelken, Schmuel (2023) The Alexander Technique (3 ed.). AT-Schule, Berlin.

Gjøre ingenting (igjen)

Alexanderteknikken er enkel. Det som er vanskelig er å være oppmerksom på hva du gjør.

Så mye av bevegelsene våre er vanestyrte. Spesielt gjelder det hva vi gjør for å organisere oss i forhold til tyngdekrafta. Godt er det, for da går det av seg selv. Men du venner deg lett til å gjøre mer enn nødvendig. Dette er uvaner du knapt kan legge merke til, og grunnen til at en Alexanderteknikk-lærer bruker hendene for å veilede i timene.

Du kan forsøke å bli oppmerksom på hva du gjør ved å gjøre ingenting noen øyeblikk. Da kan det hende unødvendige spenninger blir tydeligere. Du får også et nøytralt utgangspunkt for bevegelse.

Du kan selvfølgelig ikke gjøre absolutt ingenting helt bokstavelig. (Da hadde du vært død, og det er en lite ønskelig tilstand). For det første puster du, så det er alltid bevegelse i kroppen. For det andre ser du, så øynene er aktive. Og for det tredje er du oppreist og må gjøre noe i forhold til tyngdekrafta. (Om du ikke ligger og hviler, men her handler det om å være oppreist).

Du kan se på det å gjøre «ingenting» som et eksperiment og en øvelse i selvobservasjon. Du kan være i hvilken som helst posisjon. Enklest til å begynne med er nok å prøve sittende stilling.

Du kan observere:

1) Pusten
La munnen være lukket og la pusten gå ut og inn gjennom nesa. Pusten skjer av seg selv og ikke noe du gjør. Om du på noen måte holder pusten gjør du noe unødvendig.

Mens du observerer pusten kan du være oppmerksom på:

2) Hva du ser
Normalt vil øynene være aktive og bevege seg. Er du stiv i blikket blir du stiv i kroppen. Er du stiv i blikket gjør du noe unødvendig.

Synet hjelper balansen. (Forsøk å balansere på ett bein med åpne og lukkede øyne så merker du forskjellen). Vi har et eget synsenter i hjernen som registrerer vertikale linjer og som kan fungere selv om man ellers er funksjonelt blind. Du kan lukke øynene for å trene andre deler av balansefunksjonen, men det blir en annen type øvelse. Vi behøver normalt å holde øynene åpne.

Hva du ser forteller deg også hvor du er i rommet og i forhold til andre ting. Det er informasjon som også er nyttig å ta inn.

Mens du fortsetter å puste og se kan du observere:

3) Kontakten med underlaget.
Støtten (eller motstanden) fra underlaget gjør at du kan være oppreist. Men oppmerksomhet om bakkekontakten kan føre til kollaps. Jeg blir skeptisk når folk snakker om «grounding». Jeg har sett så mye av de negative konsekvensene for kroppen og bevegelsene. Tenk heller at trykket fra bakken hjelper deg til å holde deg oppreist.

Når vi prøver å gjøre «ingenting» kan vi lett bli statiske og passive. Så tenk at det å gjøre ingenting er en forberedelse til bevegelse. Tenk at du er i nøytral og dermed kan bevege deg i hvilken som helst retning om nødvendig.

Mens du puster, ser og er oppmerksom på kontakten med underlaget kan du observere:

4) Om du gjør noe ekstra for å holde deg oppreist.
Holder du for mye på hodet for eksempel, eller andre deler av kroppen? Armer og bein er vanligvis enklest å legge merke til.

Vi som har holdt på med Alexanderteknikken noen tiår vil automatisk begynne å tenke «retning», lengde og bredde, og eventuelle unødvendige holdinger vil reduseres i prosessen. Men se om du kan la være å tenke retning. Å tenke retning er noe vi gjør og skal vi gjøre ingenting må vi la være å gjøre det også. Dessuten kan tenke retning inkludere uvaner. Selv vi som har lang erfaring med Alexanderteknikken kan gjøre mer enn å bare tenke. Ønsket om å få noe til å skje kan gjøre at man tar i litt ekstra, hjelper litt til.

Oppdager du at du holder noe sted gir du kanskje slipp av deg selv umiddelbart. Om det ikke skjer, ikke prøv å endre noe. Bare observer og aksepter at ting er som de er akkurat nå.

Mens du puster, ser, observerer bakkekontakten og eventuelle holdinger, se om du også kan:

5) La være gjøre noe mentalt.
Vi har tanker i hodet hele tiden. Vi tenker på hva vi skal gjøre og hva vi skulle ha gjort. Vi har en indre dialog. Skal vi prøve å gjøre minst mulig kan vi også prøve å være stille inni oss. Det er ikke alltid enkelt . Jeg synes jeg klarer det best om jeg lytter til lydene rundt meg. Når vi lytter må vi være stille selv, (Men pass på at du ikke holder pusten).
Selvfølgelig varer det ikke mange sekundene før tankene beveger seg over til noe annet. Da er det bare å begynne på nytt:

1. observere pusten,
2. være oppmerksom på hva du kan se,
3. observere bakkekontakten 
4. observere om du gjør noe ekstra for å holde deg oppreist
5. være oppmerksom på hva du kan høre

… og ellers gjøre ingenting

Denne øvelsen tar bare noen øyeblikk og kan gjøre deg mer oppmerksom på hva du gjør eller ikke gjør, et godt utgangspunkt for å lære Alexanderteknikken.

[Etter å ha skrevet blogginnlegget nesten ferdig oppdaget jeg at en av mine inspirasjoner for artikkelen må være «the ready list» https://thereadylist.com/ som er utviklet og brukt av Alexanderteknikk-lærere som arbeider med barn]

Relaterte blogginnlegg
Et øyeblikks stillhet
Å gjøre ingenting

Vitalism in the Alexander Technique - Part 1

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (Genesis 2, 7 King James Bible).

The stillness of someone dead in contrast to the ever moving living human being - it is easy to understand why there is a belief that living beings are endowed with a special kind of energy or ‘life force’. This belief is probably as old as humanity itself and prevalent in all cultures. This concept is called vitalism.

Since the time of Aristotle, vitalism was the accepted norm in the philosophy of science. Many well-known scientists can be regarded as vitalists, among them Louis Pasteur. But with the development of modern science, the vitalistic view was increasingly challenged. The discourse between vitalists and mechanists is a recurring theme in the history of science.

Slowly, as knowledge and understanding increased, the ghost of vitalism was exorcised from sciences like biochemistry, physiology, neurology, and medicine. It has long since been declared dead. Today it is understood that vitalism is not compatible with science because it means explaining something you don't understand with something you can't explain.

Vitalism has all but vanished from our modern society, but there is one area where it is still alive and kicking and that is in the world of alternative health.

Alexander's vitalism

The Alexander Technique is commonly labeled as an alternative therapy. Unlike many forms of alternative therapies, the Alexander Technique is not dependent on a vitalistic explanatory model. Still, vitalism is rife among Alexander Technique teachers.

The Alexander Technique demands awareness of ourselves in activity. Ideally, it also requires awareness of our beliefs. Our view of the world may influence how we interpret bodily sensations. Vitalism is a philosophy with implications for how we understand, explain, and practice the Alexander Technique. Yet, there has been little awareness of its role in the history and development of the technique.

In this article, I discuss the vitalism in the writings of Frederick Matthias Alexander, the founder of the Alexander Technique. In future articles I plan to write about vitalism among the teachers he trained, the vitalism in the Alexander Technique literature, and also discuss the potential problems vitalism poses to the Alexander Technique teaching profession. My aim is to increase the awareness of vitalistic beliefs and inspire a professional discussion.

Vital essence

The strongest evidence for Alexander's vitalism is found in his first book, Man's Supreme Inheritance (1910). He writes:

If we grant the unity of life and the tendency of its evolution, it follows that all the manifestations of what we have called the ‘subconscious self’ are functions of the vital essence or life-force, which functions are passing from automatic or unconscious to reasoning or conscious control (Alexander 1996 p.25; Alexander 2021, p.59).(1)

Alexander's belief in the existence of a ‘vital essence or life-force’, reveals his vitalism.(2)

This quote is from Chapter III, ‘Subconsciousness and Inhibition’. There is a possibility that the text was formulated by Alexander's ghost writer, John Davy Beresford.(3) But according to Jean Fischer's ‘notes to the text’ in the Mouritz 1996 edition it is ‘probable that Beresford's influence was confined to the Preface and to Chapters 1 and 2 …’ (Alexander 1996, p.xxxviii), and since this passage was not changed in subsequent editions we have to conclude that Alexander anyway agreed with this view.

Another quote from Man's Supreme Inheritance reveals more about Alexander's views:

…I should like in passing to point out that the theory and practice of my system are influenced by no particular religion nor school of philosophy, but in one sense may be said to embrace them all. For whatever name we give to the Great Origin of the Universe, in the words of a friend of mine, “we can all of us agree… that we mean the same thing, namely, that high power within the soul of man which enables him to will or to act or to speak, not loosely or wildly, but in subjection to an all-wise and invisible Authority.” The name that we give to that Authority will in no way affect the principles which I am about to state. In subscribing to them the mechanist may still retain his belief in a theory of chemical reactions no less than the Christian his faith in a Great Redeemer (Alexander 1996, p.3)(4)

Alexander seems to have wanted a pragmatic and neutral position, serving both the ‘mechanist’ and the Christian.(5) But according to Alexander they both will agree on the existence of a ‘high power within the soul’. To Alexander, it was not a question about vitalism or non-vitalism, but about religious or non-religious vitalism. Non-vitalism was not an option.

Energy

Vitalism is often revealed by the way a person uses the word “energy”. Broadly speaking, the word is used in three different ways when describing human experience. Firstly, it can be used for actual physical energy, mostly experienced as bodily heat or through bodily movements, directly or indirectly associated with muscular activity. The source of this energy is the food we eat, which for all practical purposes is our only energy source.

Secondly, the word energy can be used metaphorically about our subjective experiences. We can feel full of energy, or a lack of energy, neither of which necessarily corresponds to the energy actually available.

Thirdly, energy can be used to mean vitalistic energy. The most well known examples are “chi” (from Chinese philosophy) or “prana” (from Indian philosophy). Vitalistic concepts of energy are used to explain and describe both specific and general bodily sensations.

Alexander uses the word energy throughout his writings.(6) The most quoted instance is perhaps Alexander's definition of the concept of direction in a footnote in The Use of the Self:

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)

This use of the term ‘energy’ could be interpreted as a sign of vitalism. ‘Conducting the energy’ is not necessary. The required energy is stored in our muscles. ‘Projecting messages from the brain’ is sufficient.

Earlier in his career Alexander used the term in a similar way in his 1910 pamphlet ‘Supplement to Re-Education of the Kinæsthetic Systems’:

Door Exercise (standing)

…The teacher should then explain to the pupil that when he is standing near the door in the upright position previous the attempt to cause the hips to move back to the door, there is a continuous energy being sent to the different muscles which enables him to stand in that upright position. All that is necessary is that the pupil shall, as it were, cut off the energy which causes the firm position at the hip joints and other parts,… (Alexander 2022 p.141)

In his last book, The Universal Constant in Living, published 1941, Alexander is still using the word energy in a similar fashion:

Those in need of physical development will always be people whose manner of use of themselves is tending to lower their standard of general functioning, and this will be associated with misdirection of energy to the musculature through unreliable and deceptive sensory guidance (feeling) (Alexander 2000 p.43).

Force

Vitalists may use the word force interchangeably with energy. In physics, they are of course two different concepts. In Constructive Conscious Control, Alexander writes about volition and inhibition as “forces”:

We are not interested here in any controversy concerned with the problem as to whether or not volition and inhibition are different manifestations of the same force, or even as to what this force is, any more than the engineer who is using electricity as a power to a particular end is immediately interested as to what electricity is (Alexander 2004, p.91).

Alexander compares the “force” of volition and inhibition with electricity. It could be that he wanted to appear rational and scientific, but to modern eyes the metaphor is vitalistic.(7)

In his 1907 article ‘The Theory and Practice of a New Method of Respiratory Re-Education’ Alexander writes about ‘nerve force’:

Dr Hugh A. McCallum … points out that over 90 per cent of the females suffering with neurasthenia (exhaustion of nerve force) are victims of visceroptosis, … (Alexander 2022, p.92)

The editor of Articles and Lectures, Jean Fischer, explains in the notes:

In the late 19th century many physicians believed there was a fixed supply of nervous energy which acted like a messenger between various parts of the body. It was thought that the stresses and strains of modern life placed too many demands on the limited supplies of nervous energy and that neurasthenia resulted when demand exceeded supply (Fischer in Alexander 2022,p.384).

Alexander saw force or energy as a resource that could be exhausted, and warns against misdirection and waste of energy.(8) To the extent Alexander was a vitalist, he was not into the abundant cosmic energy of modern New Age adherents, as some Alexander Technique teachers claim.(9)

Physiology

Another example of Alexander possibly trying to give the impression of rationality and scientific thought is his description of cell functioning in The Universal Constant in Living:

The sensory mechanism receives an impression by means of the cell receptors, and this impression is a stimulus to the excitors resulting in a reaction in the form of the production of energy (Alexander 2000, p 112).

Here it seems that Alexander equates energy with nerve signals. This is not entirely wrong as nerve signals must necessarily carry some energy.(10) A few pages earlier, however, Alexander seems to differentiate between the nerve signals and the energy used by the muscles, just as in the first quote from The Use of the Self:

In this whole procedure we see the new principle at work, for if we project those messages which hold in check the familiar habitual reaction, and at the same time project the new messages which give free rein to the motor impulses associated with nervous and muscular energy along unfamiliar lines of communication, we shall be doing what Dewey calls “thinking in activity.” (Alexander 2000, p.86)

Notice that Alexander does not say whether the ‘muscular energy’ is sent to the muscles or already stored there. On page 43 of the same book, Alexander says the energy is sent or ‘directed’ to the musculature.

It is possible that Alexander put different modes of thinking into different categories of “energy”. We saw that volition and inhibition could be different “forces”. Alexander's writing is not clear. It is not possible to say whether this is due to a lack of writing ability or a lack of understanding of the subject, or both.

Unity

In Man’s Supreme Inheritance, Alexander argues that ‘the manifestations of what we have called the “subconscious self” are functions of the vital essence or life-force, …’ (Alexander 1996 p.25). This follows, according to Alexander, ‘if we grant the unity of life’ (ibid).

Unity is a recurring theme in Alexander's writing, and he returns to the subject in his second book Constructive Conscious Control. But this time he is unwilling to subdivide “human potentialities”(11) into categories like body, mind and soul. (Vital essence is sometimes equated with “soul”):

In Man's Supreme Inheritance I endeavoured to leave no room for doubt that I base my philosophy and practice on the unity of human potentialities, which, up till now, have been differentiated and represented as “body,” “body and mind,” or” body, mind, and soul.” 

The words “mind” and “soul” are in as common use as the word “body,” and we have all been guilty of using them. Now we do know something about the body, something tangible, but what do we really know about “soul”? And do we know anything more about “mind” as such, than we do about “soul”? ( Alexander 2004 p.46).(12)

Instead, his focus is on practical procedures:

… It will therefore be understood that I have a special reason for giving so many concrete illustrations in my books. Here we have something demonstrable in simple, practical procedures, and free from those intangible phenomena which are too often inseparable from what is known as “mental” or “spiritual” discussion. (Alexander 2004 p.47).

It seems that Alexander by this moves away from overt vitalism. Maybe one of the reasons was to avoid its inherent dichotomy.(13) Alexander did not escape vitalism, however. From the quotes on energy and force, we can see that vitalistic thinking was embedded in his description of human physiology.

Alexander's legacy

When the journalist Ron Brown compiled the Authorised Summaries in the late 1940s he omitted Alexander's ‘vital essence’. The fact that this could be edited out with Alexander's approval shows that the concept was not of vital importance to Alexander nor the Alexander Technique.(14)

Still, his work is based on a vitalistic worldview and lends itself to a vitalistic interpretation. His followers continued in his footsteps to a greater or lesser degree. In the next article in this series I will take a look at vitalism expressed by the teachers he trained.

Related blog posts

A Dark Chapter

Craniosacral Therapy

Notes

(1) Alexander continues his explanation of ‘vital essence’ at the end of the chapter:

Returning to my definition of the subconscious self, it will be seen that I regard it as a manifestation of the partly-conscious vital essence, functioning at times very vividly, but on the whole incompletely, and from this postulate it follows that our endeavours should be directed to perfecting the self-consciousness of this vital essence. The perfect attainment of this object in every individual would imply a mental and physical ability, and a complete immunity from disease that is still a dream of the future. (Alexander 1996 p.27, Alexander 2021, p.62).

Note the idea of ‘complete immunity from disease’. Miracle cures are very often associated with vitalism.

(2) We know that an early influence on Alexander's thinking was François Delsarte. Alexander at one point promoted himself as a teacher of the Delsarte Method, and possibly knew Delsarte System of Expression by Genevieve Stebbins:

Every created thing is composed of two parts: a life-power or energy, and a form to show this power in effect (Stebbins 1887, p.33).

(3) It is interesting that the Wikipedia article on Beresford has this comment, mentioning several of his novels:

He has used his novelist's skill to convince the sensitive reader that the age of miracles is not over, and that, in certain circumstances, the spirit may exercise what seem to us miraculous powers over the substance of the body. This he did in 'The Camberwell Miracle' and 'Peckover'; and in this absorbing novel, he returns to the theme, with the study of a man fitting himself to become a great healer.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Beresford> [accessed 23.04.2024].

If his novels present his personal views, there is no doubt that Beresford was a vitalist.

(4) This paragraph was new to the 1918 edition of MSI. Was it Alexander's intention to prepare the Christian reader for the heavy criticism of ‘faith healing’ later in the book? Or was it an invitation to the non-religious ‘mechanist’? And who was the ‘friend’ Alexander is quoting?

(5) Alexander seems to have had a relatively open mind, but his belief in destiny may be a sign of a vitalistic outlook. Carrington reports:

Yes, he had a thing about fate or destiny. When I was young I used to find it very irritating when he used to say, ‘I believe in everything and I believe in nothing.’ But, looking back, I think it probably was a fair assessment of what he felt about things. There was no-one more rational than he was in the ordinary transactions of life but, at the same time, he had a strong feeling that there is a destiny that shapes our ends (Carrington, Carey 1992, p.16).]

(6) Compilation of Alexander's use of the word energy taken from Man's Supreme Inheritance (MSI), Constructive Conscious Control (CCC), The Use of the Self (UoS), The Universal Constant in Living (UCL), and Articles and Lectures ( A&L). They give an indication of how Alexander used the word. Those concerning conducting, projecting, sending, directing or misdirecting, or cutting off energy are the ones most likely to be associated with a vitalistic concept. (The list is not necessarily complete):

conducting energy UoS 35, confines his energies MSI 38, conflicting energies MSI 116, conscious direction of energy UoS 85, conserving available energy A&L 130, 149, continuous energy being sent A&L 142, cut off the energy A&L 142, directing energy UoS 85, energy and [muscle-] tone MSI 125, energies applied to eradicate the abnormal conditions CCC 148, energies directed into harmful channels (Crisis of 1914) CCC 64, energy directed MSI 136, energy correctly directed MSI 136, energy directed to the proper destination UCL 112, energy more or less misdirected UCL 162, energy of conflict MSI 116, energy only used when accompanied with the wrong thing A&L 267, energy expended in misdirection UCL 16, energy wasted and misdirected MSI 136, expenditure of energy CCC p.116, expenditure of vital energy MSI 111, food procured without energy MSI 18, generating and conducting energy UCL 112, human energy MSI 149; CCC 55, 61, hypertrophy of energy MSI 9, initiative and energy MSI 5, instinctive direction of energy UoS 85, limitation of energy MSI 113, mental and physical energy MSI 136, misdirect energy UCL 62, misdirected energies MSI 38, misdirected energy A&L 206; MSI 161, misdirection of energy UoS 74, 76; UCL 16, 101, 112, 119, misdirection of energy to the musculature UCL 43, misdirection of our energies UCL 101, national energy (of Germany) MSI 103, nervous and muscular energy UCL 86, outlet for my energies UCL 40, production of energy UCL 112, projection of energy UoS 62, psycho-physical energy UCL 177, reserve all thought, energy UCL 81, storing and reserving energy MSI 60, the way energy is directed UoS 62, time and energy A&L 285, time and energy saved CCC 162, waste of energy A&L 114 234; MSI 144, waste of energy due to misuse UCL 3, waste of energy through misdirections A&L 238, waste of time and energy A&L 238, wasting energy MSI xv, will-power and energy MSI 38, 59, [atomic] energy UCL 179.

(7) Alexander Technique teacher Malcolm Williamson is probably referring to this quote, and interprets it as vitalistic, in his article ‘Thinking about thinking’ in Statnews January 2022:

Alexander saw direction as a particular vital energy (see CCC, 91) that we can conduct to the “psycho-physical mechanisms” of our primary control by thinking (wishing, willing) and thereby secure the conditions for optimal functioning in any skilled or normal everyday activity (Williamson 2022, p.21).

(8) See for instance Alexander 2022 p.238 and Alexander 1996 p.136.

(9) In his book Let Your Life Flow, Alexander Technique teacher Alex Maunder puts forward claims that are not supported by evidence:

One thing that Alexander found particularly helpful for this whole process was if he remained connected with the cosmos through mental ‘directions’ projected outwards in space (Maunder 2002 p.19).

… It was the end of the Victorian era. He [Alexander] could not risk explaining his Technique in terms of energy or energy flow for fear of being misunderstood and ridiculed (ibid, p.80).

(10) In the rest of the paragraph on cell functioning, Alexander again writes about energy in a way that could be interpreted as being vitalistic:

The undue and harmful distribution and misdirection of energy for a given need can be prevented by the inhibitor, and in such case the energy required will be directed to the proper destination by the conductor.  

… If one studies closely the process involved in the generating and conducting of energy as set forth above, it will be evident that it becomes operative through the receipt of sensory impressions, and that only so long as there is unity, and not separation, between the generating and conducting systems can the process remain operative (Alexander 2000, p.112).

Alexander's description of cell functioning is probably derived from a textbook. I have not been able to find a source.

(11) The expression ‘human potentialities’ is interesting. Alexander uses it in CCC and UCL, and John Dewey uses it in his preface to The Use of the Self. ‘Potentialities’ is used throughout MSI, for instance in the chapter Race Culture and the Education of Children.

Alexander's pupil, the author Aldous Huxley was associated with the 1960s ‘human potentials movement’ <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Potential_Movement> [accessed 10.05.24]. Huxley mentions the Alexander Technique in ‘Human Potentialities’ (in The Humanist Frame, 1961), ‘Latent Human Potentialities’ (in The Human Situation, 1978) <https://mouritz.org/companion/article/aldous-huxley> [accessed 10 May 2024]. The Human Potentials Movement can be said to be associated with vitalism <https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Human_Potential_Movement> [accessed 10 May 2024].

(12) Alexander uses similar wording in The Use of the Self:

It seems strange to me that although man has thought it necessary in the course of his development in civilization to cultivate the potentialities of what he calls "mind," "soul," and "body," he has not so far seen the need for maintaining in satisfactory condition the functioning of the sensory processes through which these potentialities manifest themselves (Alexander 2018, p.107-108).

(13) A friend and colleague suggested that this change from MSI to CCC could be due to the influence by the American philosopher John Dewey. The first part of Man's Supreme Inheritance was first published 1910, Constructive Conscious Control in 1923. Alexander met Dewey around 1916. <https://mouritz.org/companion/article/john-dewey> [accessed 7 July 2024].

Another AT teacher, Amanda Cole, writes about Dewey's influence in her 2016 thesis ‘Marjorie Barstow, John Dewey and the Alexander Technique’. She refers to Thomas Dalton's Becoming John Dewey which cites Alexander's ‘vital essence’. But Cole and Dalton are concerned with Alexander's definition of the subconscious, not his vitalism:

In the 1918 edition of MSI, as Dalton observed, after consultation with Dewey “Alexander no longer imputed immaculate powers to the subconscious. He simply asserted what Dewey had long argued, that the mind and body interact and therefore conscious and subconscious processes both play an important role in human behaviour” (Dalton 119). […] As Dalton observes, Alexander had asserted in the first edition of MSI that “all manifestations of what we have called the ‘subconscious self’ are functions of the vital essence or life force, which functions are passing from automatic or unconscious to reasoning or conscious control” (ibid). Such terminology had already grown in disfavour among philosophers and physicists (ibid) (Cole 2016, pp.91-92).

Cole and Dalton give the impression that the quote containing 'vital essence’ was changed, but only the wording was slightly edited, (compare Alexander 2021 p.59 and Alexander 1996 p.25). (Dalton could have meant to refer to new material on the subconscious added to the 1918 edition, possibly a new paragraph in the chapter on ‘Sub-Consciousness and Inhibition’, see Alexander 1996 p.236).

In her 2022 book Marjory Barstow and the Alexander Technique, Cole describes a possible effect of group teaching and draws a parallel to EFT, Emotional Freedom Technique (Cole 2022 p.201, note 141 p.278). The explanatory model for EFT is based on the existence of “chi”: <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_Freedom_Techniques> [accessed 7 July 2024]. Cole is probably a vitalist herself.

(14) Compare Alexander 1996 p.25 and p.27 with Alexander 1992 p.15 (Part I, Chapter 3). According to Walter Carrington, Alexander checked and initialled the pages of the manuscript as he read them (Alexander 1992 p.9).

Literature

Alexander, F.M., Brown (ed) (1992) Authorised Summaries of F.M. Alexander's Four Books. STAT Books.

Alexander, F.M. (1996) Man's Supreme Inheritance. Mouritz.

Alexander, F.M. (2000) The Universal Constant in Living. Mouritz.

Alexander, F.M. (2004) Constructive Conscious Control of the Individual. Mouritz.

Alexander, F.M. (2018) The Use of the Self. Orion Spring.

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.

Alexander, FM., Fischer (ed) (2022) Articles and Lectures. Mouritz.

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

Cole, Amanda Jane (2016) Marjorie Barstow, John Dewey and the Alexander Technique: A philosophical constellation, or “Variations of the Teacher’s Art” [PhD Doctorate, Griffith University] DOI 10.25904/1912/1305

Cole, Amanda (2022) Marjorie Barstow and the Alexander Technique: Critical Thinking in Performing Arts Pedagogy. Palgrave Macmillan.

Maunder, Alex (2002) Let Your Life Flow. The Physical, Psychological and Spiritual Benefits of the Alexander Technique. The C. W. Daniel Company.

Stebbins, Genevieve (1887) Delsarte System of Expression. Edgar S. Werner. New York.

<https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=iau.31858006007730> [accessed 7 July 2024]

Williamson, Malcolm (2022) Thinking about thinking, in Statnews January 2022, Vol II issue 4.

5 ting du bør gjøre hver dag

Å bevege seg er bra. Å ikke bevege seg er usunt, antagelig mer usunt enn å bevege seg dårlig. Men mer bevegelse er ikke nødvendigvis bedre. For mye av de samme er ikke bra. Mangel på variasjon kan føre til problemer. Vi behøver så stort bevegelsesrepertoar som mulig.

Vi gjør mye av de samme bevegelsene hver dag. Noen bevegelser gjør vi kanskje bare av og til. Etterhvert kan det hende vi slutter å gjøre dem helt. Et godt eksempel er det å sette seg på huk. Vi kunne det alle som barn, men mange får vansker med å sette seg på huk som voksne.

Med årene kan flere andre bevegelser også bli problematiske. Eldre mennesker kan få problemer med å se opp i taket, se seg over skulderen, løfte armene over hodet osv. Selv om du ikke er blant de som begynner å dra på åra kan det lønne seg å holde disse bevegelsene ved like.

De kan være en kontrast til bevegelsene du gjør mye av til daglig. Det kan være godt for kroppen. Det er også bevegelser som egner seg godt til å øve på anvendelse av Alexanderteknikken. Jeg bruker dem ofte i undervisningen.

Her er 5 bevegelser det er fint å gjøre hver dag:

1 Balansere på ett bein

Å balansere på ett bein er egentlig noe vi gjør stadig vekk. Når vi går har vi vekt på ett bein et lite øyeblikk om gangen. Å stå stille på ett bein er annerledes. Det er mer krevende og gir god grunntrening til det å gå og å løpe. Dessuten er det en fin aktivitet for jobbe med både oppmerksomhet, (hvis du begynner å tenke på noe annet balanserer du dårligere med en gang), det å stoppe/vente (inhibition) og å tenke lengde (direction) .

Du kan lese mer om å balansere på ett bein her:

Balansere på ett bein

2 Se i taket

I Alexanderteknikken ønsker vi at hodet går «fram og opp». Men når vi ser opp må hodet bakover. Hvordan henger dette sammen?

Hvis du har for mye spenninger i nakken betyr det at du holder for mye på hodet. Gir du slipp på noe av spenningen vil hodet ha tendens til å rotere forover på grunn av vektbalansen, og opp fordi spenninger komprimerer nakken. Å la hodet gå «fram og opp» er å komme tilbake til noe som er mer nøytralt og som gir mulighet for bevegelse, også til å la hodet gå bakover for å se i taket.

Du kan lese mer om å se opp her:

Se opp

3 Armene over hodet

Å løfte armene over hodet kan godt kombineres med foregående bevegelse. Det er jo ofte når vi bruker armene over hodet at vi har behov for å se opp. Det er mange måter å gjøre bevegelsen på, i tillegg til muligheten av å løfte venstre arm, høyre eller begge. Jo høyere opp du løfter, jo større er sjansen for å stramme mer i nakken enn nødvendig. Det lønner seg å vite noe om hva som må bevege på seg. Kanskje finner du noe nyttig i disse blogginnleggene:

Kragebeinet

Skulderbladet

4 Se deg over skulderen

Når vi blir anspent er mangel på rotasjonsbevegelse et tydelig tegn. Å ha «fri» nakke betyr (blant annet) frihet til å la nakken rotere, som når du ser deg over skulderen.

Du kan gjøre bevegelsen sittende eller stående. Begynn i nøytral med blikket rettet forover. Se til siden og la så hodet og resten av kroppen følge etter, del for del.

Observer lengden på begge sider av kroppen. Det er lett å bli kortere på en av sidene. Du kan lære mye om å ha «lengde» som du har nytte av i andre sammenhenger.

Noe annet å observere er hvordan hver ny del av kroppen blir med på rotasjonen. Om du er stiv vil f.eks skuldrene bli med for tidlig, eller kan hende bruker du andre spenninger for å hindre det. Bevegelsen skal være helt lett. Ikke gå for langt. Vær også oppmerksom på om du holder pusten.

Du kan lese om nakkerotasjon her:

Axis

Hodebevegelse

5 Ned på huk

Når vi bøyer oss ned gjør vi oss lett kortere. I stedet kan vi se det som en mulighet til å få lengde og bredde i kroppen.

Mange har problemer med å sette seg helt ned på huk, og for noen er det ikke aktuelt på grunn av fysiske begrensninger. Hvis det gjelder deg, gå ikke lenger ned enn at du klarer det uten anstrengelse. Kanskje kan du gå litt dypere i morgen.

Jeg har skrevet om det å sette seg ned på huk tidligere: 
Ned på huk

Litt hver dag

For alle bevegelsene gjelder at du begynner fra nøytral og tenker lengde og bredde. Varier rekkefølgen, kombiner flere bevegelser og inkluder gjerne andre bevegelser du mener å ha nytte av. Det holder å gjøre hver bevegelse en eller to ganger. Ikke gjør mer enn tre. Bevegelsene skal gjøres med oppmerksomhet. Litt hver dag er tingen.

Relaterte blogginnlegg

Øvelser

Litt hver dag

Ancient Wisdom

I read a lot on the Alexander Technique, both books and online. Sometimes I come across the claim that this or that is “ancient wisdom”. This makes me feel uneasy .

First of all, it is a logical fallacy: Appeal to tradition 

The fact that something is old does not mean it is true or good. Using fallacious arguments seriously weakens the credibility of the text and makes it appear unprofessional.

Alexander teachers who write about “ancient wisdom” naturally associates the expression with something positive. It is all too easy to find negative examples. A case in point is traditional Chinese medicine. It is a main driver for the extinction of rhinos, pangolins, and other species. Lately also causing problems for farmers and others relying on their donkeys for transport.

Millions of donkeys killed each year to make medicine

This is “ancient stupidity”. Ancient wisdom isn't always wise.

What is “ancient wisdom”? Very often it is used about something we have known is true for a very long time. Maybe common sense is a good substitute. We humans haven't changed that much over the last hundred thousand years. What is important in life has not in principle changed.

Of course, we tend today to overlook or underestimate the level of sophistication of ancient handicraft and technologies. In that respect, “modern” isn't always better either.

But all in all, science and technology have moved on. People who write about “ancient wisdom” would probably not go back to ancient times. I often see in books on the Alexander Technique an ambivalent attitude to science. On the one hand modern science, or western tradition is criticised. At the same time scientific research is used in support of the arguments presented. This self-contradiction can be interpreted as a sign of ignorance of scientific methods and seriously weakens the credibility of the text. (Penelope Easten's Twelve Fundamentals of Integrated Movement is a case in point).

Sometimes, this negativity against Western culture gives the impression of prejudice. The same thoughts presented about Eastern traditions would very likely be seen as racism. You can check this for yourself by reading the text, replacing Western with Eastern, and see how it makes you feel.

Ultimately, the use of expressions like "ancient wisdom" is a symptom of habits of thinking. In the Alexander Technique we strive to get rid of habits and come back to a more neutral state. In thinking about the technique and explaining it, this should mean being neutral and objective, as far as that is possible. The Alexander Technique literature shows us that we have some way to go.

Related blog posts
Craniosacral Therapy

Habitual Reactions

Nye ideer

I undervisningen forsøker jeg alltid å prøve ut nye ideer. Folk er forskjellige og undervisningen må tilpasses hver enkelt. Selv om prinsippene er de samme er det veldig ulikt hva som fungerer. En ide som er praktisk nyttig for én person kan virke meningsløs for en annen.

Med tiden forandrer vi oss også, (utvikler vi oss, forhåpentligvis). Måten du tenker på i dag er kanskje ikke den beste om et halvt år. Derfor er det bra å prøve ut noe nytt.

Her er noen ideer jeg har brukt en del i det siste.

Trekant

Å bøye seg ned er en bevegelse vi gjør mye. Vi gjør det hver gang vi setter oss ned og hver gang vi skal ha tak i noe som ligger lavt.

Å bøye seg ned er en bevegelse som gjør at vi lett presser oss sammen. Vi ønsker det motsatte, at vi ekspanderer. Å bøye seg ned er egentlig en veldig enkel bevegelse. Den er nærmest innebygd i kroppen. La beina folde seg sammen og det går av seg selv.

Intensjonen om å komme seg lavere kombinert med at vi holder igjen i beina på diverse måter gjør at det ikke går helt glatt. Vi motarbeider oss selv og ender opp med å presse sammen overkroppen og nakken. 

En ide som kan gjøre at du gir mer slipp på beina er å forestille seg at bekken og knær danner en trekant, og at du lar trekanten bli større jo lavere ned du går. Effekten blir at du lar beina gjøre jobben og unngår å stramme nakken.

Knær

Men hva er knær egentlig? Hva mener vi når vi bruker ordet? Vi tenker kanskje på den store klumpen som utgjør enden av lårbeinet, eller kanskje på kneskåla? Men når vi beveger oss er det ikke der bevegelsen skjer. Ser du på bilder av skjelettet vil du se at selve leddet der bevegelsen skjer ligger nedenfor kneskåla. Denne kunnskapen er ikke akkurat noen ny ide, men kan også hjelpe deg til å gi lettere slipp på beina.

Huk

Å sette seg ned er en bevegelse mye brukt i Alexanderteknikk-timer. Den viser veldig tydelig om du krymper eller ekspanderer. «Alle» har problemer med den bevegelsen, selv de som lett setter seg helt ned på huk. Vi har ofte dårlige vaner knyttet til det å sitte på en stol, og stolen får oss til å reagere uhensiktsmessig. Men er du av dem som kan gå helt ned på huk kan du unngå mye av det.

Av og til i en time kan jeg ta bort stolen og be eleven gå ned på huk og komme opp igjen. Så setter jeg stolen tilbake og ber eleven gjenta bevegelsen. Samtidig ber jeg ham/henne tenke på å gå ned på huk selv om stolen står der. Uten unntak vil eleven sette seg ned på en bedre måte, dvs. bruke beina i stedet for å skvise kroppen. Prøver du ut denne tenkemåten vil du kanskje oppdage at du kan bøye deg ned lettere og dypere enn du tror. 

Relaterte blogginnlegg

Knær eller rygg

Trigonometri

Alexanderteknikk i farta

I blogginnlegget om Alexanderteknikk på glattisen nevnte jeg hvor viktig det er å ta det med ro. Når du lærer å bevege deg på en ny måte er det spesielt viktig å ta seg tid, ellers gjør du fort ting på din vante måte. Du må ta tid før bevegelsen. Ofte er det lurt å senke tempoet på selve bevegelsen også.

Når du lærer Alexanderteknikk er det mye å hente ved å senke tempoet i forhold til det normale. Men vi kan ikke bare gjøre langsomme bevegelser. Vi må kunne bruke Alexanderteknikken når vi beveger oss raskt også.

Den enkleste aktiviteten å begynne med pleier å være å gå. Retningene vi tenker er de samme enten du går langsomt eller hurtig. Når du er vant til å bruke Alexanderteknikken når du går kan du forsøke å sette opp tempoet. Hvis du ikke kan tenke retning samtidig som du er i bevegelse, tenker du på feil måte. Det kan være nyttig å veksle mellom å gå hurtig og å gå langsomt. Neste steg kan være å veksle mellom å gå og å løpe. Du vil finne ut at det er fullt mulig å tenke retning for hode, nakke og rygg mens du beveger armer og bein så fort du bare kan.

Ikke alle bevegelser kan utføres sakte. Du kan for eksempel ikke kaste noe langsomt. Karakteren på bevegelsen endres når du gjør den sakte. Du bruker musklene på en annen måte, og da blir kanskje ikke utførelsen naturlig eller hensiktsmessig. Å sette seg eller reise seg opp veldig langsomt kan være interessant, men dynamikken i bevegelsen blir en annen enn den du bruker til daglig, og dermed ikke egentlig det du har bruk for å kunne.

På kontoret har jeg sjongleringsballer som elever av og til bruker. Det er mye morsomt du kan gjøre med sjongleringsballer, og mange gode grunner til å bruke dem i en Alexanderteknikk-time. ( Hvis du ikke har sjongleringsballer kan du kaste noe annet, en appelsin for eksempel). Hvis du kaster en ball fra ene hånda til den andre er det et eksempel på en relativ rask bevegelse. Utfordringen er å tenke retning både før, under og etter kastet. Å tenke retning sikrer at hele kroppen kan tilpasse seg bevegelsen samtidig som du ikke gjør noe unødvendig.

Når noen kaster ballen fram og tilbake hender det at de blir mer anspent for hvert kast. Det viser hvor viktig det er å utnytte pausen før bevegelsen.

Å utnytte pauser er noe musikere gjør når de øver. Musikere øver raske passasjer i langsomt tempo, men en alternativ måte å øve på er å dele opp passasjen i mindre deler med pauser imellom, og spille delene hurtig. Da bevares karakteren og typen bevegelser. Pausen brukes til mentalt å forberede neste gruppe toner.

En annen bevegelse du kan eksperimentere med er å strekke hånden ut og berøre noe. Når du gjør bevegelsen endres tyngdepunktet og kroppsbalansen justeres. Da er det viktig med "fri nakke", en nøkkel til organisering av balansen. Balansejusteringene skjer i hele kroppen, men du kan lettest merke dem i beina. Prøv å bevege hånda raskt for å berøre noe o g veksle mellom å la knær, hofter og ankler være ledige, eller bevisst holde igjen. Det gjør en stor forskjell for bevegelsen ikke å stramme i beina Samme frihet til tilpasning må vi ha i leddet mellom hodet og nakken.

Andre bevegelser du kan utforske i hurtig versjon kan være å gripe noe, flytte på en gjenstand, bøye deg ned, sette deg eller reise deg opp.

Å reise seg fort er interessant fordi både det å reise seg langsommere og hurtigere gjør bevegelsen annerledes. I normalt tempo kan du la tyngdekrafta hjelpe kroppen forover for å få vekta over føttene. Gjør du det langsomt må du holde igjen og du mister moment. Gjør du det veldig raskt bruker du ekstra muskler (hofteleddsbøyerne). Det er dette de fleste gjør selv i normalt tempo selv om det er unødvendig.

Gjør du en bevegelse der du bøyer deg ned kan du la tyngdekrafta gjøre jobben. Det er ikke sikkert du gjør bevegelsen noe raskere om du aktivt bruker musklene til å bøye beina. Det kan være like effektivt bare å slippe seg ned.

Raske bevegelser krever ofte mer spenning og mer muskelkraft, i alle fall i begynnelsen av bevegelsen. Kan du likevel fortsette å tenke retning og unngå å stramme nakken? En god framgangsmåte for å finne det ut kan være å variere tempoet, veksle mellom hurtig og langsomt. Hva er forskjellen? Kan du fremdeles la nakken være fri? Må du tenke på en annen måte under hurtige bevegelser?

Å bruke Alexanderteknikken når du beveger deg raskt er nyttig for å unngå å bli anspent. Du får mer nytte av teknikken. Når du kan anvende teknikken på denne måten forstår du bedre hva det er å tenke retning. Kanskje kan det også gjøre deg oppmerksom på om du gjør bevegelser raskere enn du behøver.

Det et mulig å bevege seg raskt uten å stresse. Men når vi blir stressa prøver vi ofte å gjøre for mye for fort. Da går det fort galt. Idealet bør ikke være å gjøre alt fortest mulig, men å gjøre hva som helst i et passende tempo. Akkurat som i musikken vil hva som er passe tempoet variere.

Relaterte blogginnlegg

Treiginger