Vitalism in the Alexander Technique – Part 2

The Vitalism of Walter Carrington

Vitalism is the belief that living beings are endowed with a kind of "life force" or "energy" that sets them apart from non-living objects. This view was abandoned by science a hundred years ago but seems to be fairly common among Alexander Technique teachers. 

Vitalism is a philosophy with implications for how we understand and explain the technique. But there has been little awareness of the role of vitalism in the history, development, and practice of the Alexander Technique. I'm writing a series of articles with the aim of increasing the awareness of vitalism among Alexander Technique teachers and contribute to a professional discussion.

In the first article in this series I looked at the signs of vitalism in the writings of F.M. Alexander. The clearest example is the use of "vital essence or life force" in his first book (Alexander 1996, 25; Alexander 2021, 59).). Throughout his writings, Alexander's concept of directing, conducting, or projecting energy is based on a vitalistic understanding of human physiology. In this second article I will discuss similar ideas expressed by Walter Carrington.

Walter Carrington (1915-2005)

Walter Carrington was for many years one of Alexander's assistant teachers, and one of the teachers who took over the running of the training course. In some respects he can be considered Alexander's successor. Carrington developed his own personal style of describing and explaining the Alexander Technique, clearly based on Alexander's ideas. Like Alexander, he uses language that can be interpreted as expressing vitalism. (1)

Vital Force and Force of Nature

In one of his published talks, Carrington uses the expression "vital force" when talking about fallen arches and flat feet:

… unless the whole working of what we call the primary control is taken into consideration then the vital force doesn't flow properly in the arch, … (Carrington 1999, 32).

This is a parallel to Alexander's "vital essence" and an indication that Carrington held similar views. It could be, however, that Carrington intends it to be metaphorical. On the preceding page, he defines "vital force" as "the upward working of the whole of the neuromuscular system" (ibid., 31).

In a later talk he uses the expression "force of Nature" which also could be interpreted as a vitalistic concept. It is the force of Nature that "takes us up":

… we have to rely on Nature to put things that are wrong, right. It's the force of Nature, the energy of Nature that takes us up, that mobilizes us, that enables us to do all the things that we have been speaking about (Carrington 2006, 181).

Upthrust and upward energy

"Upthrust" is another term with potentially vitalistic connotations used by Carrington to describe postural activity:

It's the whole of the body's musculature right the way through that is working in a way that generates an upthrust (Carrington 1999, 30).

But most frequently Carrington describes postural activity as a flow of upward energy:

… clearly it is desirable that you should go up as much as possible all the time. Because the more the upward energy flows, the lighter and freer you'll be … (Carrington 1999, 85).

[Our task] is to prevent what will hinder Nature from the natural flow of energy that takes us up and supports us (Carrington 2006, 182). (2)

Direction and energy

As I mentioned in the first article, vitalism is often revealed by the way a person uses the word "energy". 'We saw that Alexander's definition for "directions" may be interpreted as vitalism:

… projecting messages from the brain to the mechanisms and … conducting the energy necessary to the use of these mechanisms (Alexander 2018, 35).

Carrington refers to Alexander's definition, saying it is "one of the most important things he ever put on paper" (Carrington 1994, 23). Like Alexander, Carrington frequently describes giving directions as "directing energy":

Conscious direction we can speak of as a thinking process to direct energy, as an energetic process … (Carrington, 1994, 23).

If you realize that your body is shrinking, ...that instead of your shoulders going out as they should, they're hunching in, … then you've got to direct the energy for them to go out (Carrington 1994, 27). (3)

Carrington appears to go one step further than Alexander by suggesting that we not only direct energy but that the directions themselves may also produce or generate energy:

You see, the direction produces energy (Carrington 2006, 191).

People often forget that our simple wish is the prime source of all our energy (Carrington 2017, 146). (4)

In addition to talking about energy being directed, like Alexander did, Carrington also describes the energy as flowing:

So if the head is going to lead somewhere, then leading means, as far as vertebrates are concerned, that there has to be an energy, a direction, a flow of energy through the spine (Carrington 1999, 53).

Freedom of the neck is the keynote because it's only when you've got that freedom can the energy flow occur that is necessary for uprightness or counteraction of gravity (ibid., 88). (5)

Carrington compares directing to controlling the flow of water, another potentially vitalistic metaphor:

If you think of a stream of water flowing, you can direct the water this way or that way, you can, with a bit of care and luck, stop it from flowing where you don't want it to flow - although this is often pretty difficult, as people will know if they've ever tried to do it in a practical way, because when water is flowing there's no question it, so to speak, has a life of its own. So this metaphor of flowing water really does give you a picture of what inhibition and direction is all about, because the problem is not the flow of energy. The problem is how you deal with it and how you control it (Carrington 1999, 104-5). (6)

Alexander Technique teachers may use flow of energy as a metaphor for directions but without necessarily believing it to be objective reality (Carey/Nicholls 1991, p.120). Carrington, on the other hand, uses the flow of water as a metaphor for the flow of energy. This give the impression that Carrington believes the flow of energy to be real and not just a fitting description of a sensation.

Energy of life

Carrington associates energy with life itself and with living beings:

As life goes on, life flows, energy flows. You don't have to do anything to make the energy flow … (Carrington 1999, 104).

As a natural property of living things, we all do generate energy to counteract gravity (Carrington 1994, 30).

This energy is constantly operating in the body:

Energy is directed all the time in the body by processes that we often are not aware of, processes that operate below the level of consciousness. Even when we are asleep, energy is operating in the body (Carrington 1994, 23).

The energy can be directed, but also interfered with, misdirected, blocked off, or leaked:

… you can't make the energy flow, but you can interfere with it, you can prevent it, you can stop it and also you can direct it and redirect it (Carrington 1999, 104).

There are all sorts of ways in which you can block off and inhibit the natural flow of upward energy (Carrington 1994, 30)

… when there's masses of energy about the place, if it gets misdirected, disaster really can follow (Carrington 1999, 105).

If the body weight is not being supported efficiently, then there is a tremendous energy leak … (Carrington 1999, 105). (7)

These descriptions may indicate a vitalistic conception of energy.

Sources of energy

Carrington describes several sources of energy. Most important seems to be the source of energy associated with intentions and thinking directions:

… our simple wish is the prime source of all our energy (Carrington 2017, 146); … direction produces energy (Carrington 2006, 191).

This energy is organic; it is "generated" in the body.(Carrington 1994, 30). (8) But Carrington questions our knowledge about it:

Nobody really knows at the present time exactly how the whole neuromuscular mechanism, how the neurophysiology, works. How it is that throughout the whole organism the energy is generated to neutralize the gravitational effect? (Carrington 1999, 84).

We know perfectly well how energy is converted in the body to enable nervous or muscular activity. So what kind of energy is Carrington talking about? The impression is that Carrington's understanding of human physiology is influenced by vitalism.

Carrington also mentions external sources of energy:

Gravity is a tremendous source of energy and it's a tremendous help in our lives (Carrington 1999, 48).

Human beings are not physiologically capable of utilising gravity as an energy source. What Carrington is referring to is that we can "make use of weight, heaviness, the propensity of things to drop and fall" (Carrington 1994, 26), and we can make use of the related contact forces:

By lying down on the table, going into monkey, by putting our bodies into different attitudes, we are able to use this valuable source of external energy to assist us (ibid.).

To label these forces "energy" is inaccurate, and they are definitely not a source of energy. We never get as much back as we put in, something Carrington might seem to acknowledge:

This energy is a very valuable addition, but we do need to have our own conscious energy if we are going to succeed (ibid.).

Carrington also defines receiving hands-on guidance from an Alexander Technique teacher as a source of energy:

Then of course there is a third source of external energy, somebody else's hands. This, again is extremely valuable. It is a great deal of what teaching the Technique is all about. Helping each other by applying our energy to the benefit of the other person (ibid.).

It is tempting to associate energy in this last quote with hands on healing energy. But from the context it is clear that Carrington is referring to mechanical forces and kinetic energy when talking about the practical teaching situation. Carrington does not, as some Alexander Technique teachers do, ascribe the sensations experienced when receiving hands on work to vitalistic energy like "chi" (Farkas 2019, 202). Sometimes, Carrington may use energy only as a metaphor.

Energy as metaphor

Carrington seems sometimes to be equating energy with movement, muscle tension, or nerve signals:

The supporting reaction is a very positive process of generating movement, generating a flow of energy … (Carrington 1999, 78).

… if you overdo the counteraction of the downward force by generating more energy in the neck, that clearly will have the effect of tilting the head back … (Carrington 1999, 84).

… all the nerve pathways and all the inter-connections whereby energy flows from one nerve center to another are very largely habitual. … (Carrington 1999, 146).

He also defines energy as that which causes movement, a 'mechanistic' explanation:

Energy is that which enables us to mobilize our weight. It enables us to move (Carrington 1994, 22).

But in his explanation for why he chooses to use the word energy, Carrington says:

I am emphasizing energy because as soon as we start talking about movement, people are naturally inclined to start thinking about muscles. […] You see, if we stick just to using the term energy and thinking of energy […], then we are not committed to saying that it is just muscles that cause movement. We are not really committed to saying it is nerves. We don't even have to say it is nervous energy. There may be other sorts of energy (ibid).

The term "energy" is vague and indefinable. Carrington finds this useful. It allows for what might be seen as more "holisitic" or non-dualistic descriptions. Carrington uses energy to describe different aspects of human functioning. The word can have different meanings and be used as a metaphor. Carrington admits, however, that "There may be other sorts of energy". This suggest that even when used as metaphor there is potential for a vitalistic interpretation.

Legacy and influence

Carrington continued Alexander's use of language that can be interpreted as vitalistic. But his vitalism is more explicit. Alexander directs, projects or conducts energy. Carrington's energy is a property of living beings, always operating in the body. It can be generated by directions; it flows upwards, it flows along the spine.

It has to be considered that all but one of the quotes in the material (Carrington 1996, 225) are from published talks or interviews. It may not be how Carrington would have formulated himself if he had sat down to write. On the other hand, it can also be said to reveal his thinking unfiltered.

Carrington gave regular talks at his training course for teachers more or less on a daily basis (Carrington 1994, 9). These talks were unscripted improvisations over a theme, often a passage from Alexander's books. In his introduction to the first volume of published talks, John Nicholls, who was present at these talks over several years, sums it up like this:

The message repeated again and again is that we are responsible for how our energies are directed, whether we are conscious of it or not, that we can learn how to redirect those energies into more useful pathways … (Nicholls 1994, 13-14).

"Energy" is a recurring theme in Carrington's talks. (9)

Through his training of teachers, Walter Carrington's rhetoric has had the potential to influence generations of Alexander Technique teachers. The aim of this article has been to highlight an aspect of his teaching that has until now been very little discussed. I think it is time we did. As the practical skills of teaching the Alexander Technique are handed down to us, so are habits of thinking. We need to question those habits if we are going to evolve as a profession.

In the next article in this series, I'll present the ideas of other teachers trained by Alexander himself, "the first-generation teachers".

Related blog posts

Vitalism in the Alexander Technique: Part 1

Notes

(1) Information about Walter Carrington can be found on the Mouritz Companion website:

https://mouritz.org/companion/article/walter-carrington

(2) List of references to related quotes.

Upward energy: Carrington 1992, 26; Carrington 1999, 16. Upward energy flow: Carrington 1994, 30; Carrington 1999, 85, 109, 112. Energizing upwards: Carrington 1999, 94. Energy counteracting gravity: Carrington 1994, 30; Carrington 1999, 88, 108. Energy counteracting downward pressures/forces: Carrington 1994, 31, 32; Carrington 1999, 78, 84, 116. Upward force: Carrington 1996, 225.

(3) References for directing energy: Carrington 1994, 19, 23-27, 53; Carrington 1999, 53, 104, 105. Conducting energy: Carrington 1994, 24.

(4) See also Carrington 1994, 83; Carrington 1999, 80; Carrington 2006, 194.

(5) References for flow of energy: Carrington 1994, 24, 30, 32, 83. Carrington 1999, 53, 78, 85, 88, 104, 105, 108, 109, 110, 112, 146. Carrington 2006, 182, 191. Carrington 2017, 73.

(6) The quote is from a talk given in October 1989. The same metaphor can be found in another talk from the same month (Carrington 1999, 146) and in a talk from March 1983 (Carrington 1994, 36). It seems to be a metaphor Carrington used on several occasions. 

(7) References for misdirecting, blocking, interfering or leaking energy.

Misdirected: 1994, 25; 1999, 105. Block: Carrington 1994, 30. Prevent, interfere, stop: 1999, 104. Leak: 1999, 151.

(8) References for energy generated: Carrington 1994, 30; Carrington 1999, 16, 78, 80, 84. Energy generated by thinking directions: Carrington 1994, 83; Carrington 1999, 80; Carrington 2006, 191; Carrington 2017, 146.

(9) According to Nicholls, several hundreds of these talks were recorded. My first teacher in Oslo, who trained with Carrington, had at least one audio cassette. These recordings deserve further investigation. A closer analysis could reveal, for instance, whether the vitalistic tendency increases over time, as is my impression.

Literature

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

Carrington, W.; Carey, S. 1992. Explaining the Alexander Technique: The Writings of F. Matthias Alexander. The Sheildrake Press.

Carrington, Walter. 1994. Thinking Aloud: Talks on the Alexander Technique. Mornum Time Press.

Carrington, Walter. (1996). Beyond Words. In J. Sontag (ed.), Curiosity Recaptured (pp. 223-228). San Francisco: Mornum Time Press.

Carrington, Walter (1999) The Act of Living: Talks on the Alexander Technique. Mornum Time Press.

Carrington, W. (2006) Inhibition and Direction. In Langford (ed.), Remembering Walter Carrington (pp.171-185). Alexandertechniek Centrum vzw, Leuven.

Carrington, W. (2006) Checking the Compass. In Langford (ed.), Remembering Walter Carrington (pp. 187-197. Alexandertechniek Centrum vzw, Leuven.

Carrington, Walter and Dilys. 2017. An Evolution of the Alexander Technique: Selected Writings. The Sheildrake Press.

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

Langford, Elisabeth, ed. (2006) Remembering Walter Carrington: Keystone of the Alexander Technique. Alexandertechniek Centrum vzw, Leuven.

Nicholls J. & Carey S. (1991) The Alexander Technique: In Conversation with John Nicholls and Sean Carey. Brighton Alexander Training Centre.

Nicholls, John (1991). The Annual Memorial Lecture 1986: The Alexander Technique in a Larger Context. In Nicholls & Carey, The Alexander Technique (pp. 103-122). Brighton Alexander Training Centre.

Nicholls, John (1994) Introduction. In Carrington, Thinking Aloud (pp. 9-14). Mornum Time Press.

Sontag, Jerry, ed. (1996) Curiosity Recaptured: Exploring Ways We Think and Move. Mornum Time Press.

Twelve Fundamentals

My blog article this time is a review of Penelope Easten's book Twelve Fundamentals of Integrated Movement. The book seems to have had quite a lot of attention among Alexander Technique teachers. I have met people who regard it very favourably. But it has also gotten some harsh criticism. Here I present what I think are the pros and cons of the book.

The actual title of this book is "The Alexander Technique". I'm using the subtitle so as not to confuse it with all the other books of the same title. I see the author herself using the subtitle in her communications. In the introductory chapter Easten tells about her background and influences, and the aims of the book, which seems to be "grasping the whole elephant" of the Alexander Technique.

As other authors, Easten explains how we end up using ourselves badly. She then presents her "Twelve Fundamentals". I'm sure they make perfect sense in Easten's head, but there are too many to be practically helpful to the reader. Besides, some are derived from other fundamentals and so not fundamentals after all. We are told that the fundamentals don't "resonate with you as true if they are currently outside your experience". Apparently they are not supposed to make sense logically. In the following chapters we are taken through the fundamentals of structure, awareness and thinking.

Easten attempts to give a modernised explanation of how the body works. She draws on, among other things, the tensegrity principle and polyvagal theory. She eagerly refers to scientific research, but criticises at the same time "Western thought". Similar comments about "Eastern thought" would be interpreted as racist. Easten very often uses phrases like "I propose that" or "I suggest that", found in scientific papers, which gives a sciency veneer. Not all ideas are backed by research, and Easten admits some ideas are "highly speculative".

Easten seems to think that awareness of a part of your head activates the corresponding part of the brain. She encourages the use of the right brain hemisphere, albeit saying it is "partly metaphor". She also seems to propagate the myth that we are "only accessing a fraction of our neurology".

Throughout the book there are "Explorations". These are always opportunities for learning, even though some are rather crude, (imagining having a paintbrush on my nose is not my thing). Unfortunately, Easten diminishes their value by generally suggesting what you are going to feel.

Easten stresses the importance of both internal and external awareness, but gets lost in her own jargon. We are told to "think from embodied intelligence and spatial awareness"; and from "mind in the brain". The mind apparently being something that can move around. (Easten herself points out the dichotomy).

The first part ends with a look at walking and breathing. Bouncing is an activity in one of the explorations. I generally appreciate Easten's attempt at bringing in more dynamic activities. Balancing on one leg, and going into the "plank" position are other activities used in the book. Strangely, Easten claims swimming is a two-dimensional activity, so there seems to be limitations to her understanding.

The second part is to a great extent about developing a new and improved alignment of the body. This seems to stem from the "Initial Alexander Technique" method by Jeando Masoero. He claims it to be an early version of the Alexander Technique, heavily influenced by Delsarte. The ideal for alignment appears to be based on interpretations of pictures of FM Alexander. This in itself invalidates the theory. Nobody is perfect and everybody is different.

The means for achieving this improved alignment could be said to be the Alexander Technique, though. You have a set of movements to perform, and directions to give. Here, Easten has a brilliant way of explaining how to give directions in sequence, "all together, one after the other".

Her instructions accompanying the Explorations are a mess, unfortunately. She doesn't differentiate between what to think, what to do, and what you end up feeling. Often she goes into anatomical detail which might dazzle the ignorant, but which isn't necessarily helpful, or even credible. (How do you for instance pull your pubococcygeals [sic] forwards, widen the lower ribs using the inferior posterior serratus muscles, or widen the chest by using the transversus thoracis?)

Easten is a great admirer of Margaret Goldie. Easten claims the increased postural tone necessary to attain the improved alignment is what Goldie sought in her teaching. It is highly unlikely Goldie would have agreed with Easten's direct methods. Micromanaging posture only leads to excess "doing". Try following Easten's instructions and then do something like play a musical instrument or singing! Goldie would most likely have performed Alexander's "hands on the back of the chair" in semiflexion to stimulate dynamic tone. She is known for having left pupils in a "position of mechanical advantage" for prolonged periods of time. 

Goldie is often mentioned in the book, and so is something Easten labels 'the modern Alexander technique'. It is not clear what this is. Is it the simplified version teachers present online, or what Easten learned in her training (which had shortcomings according to Easten), or the technique after about 1925 when Alexander came up with the concept of primary control? Some of Easten's critique of the "modern" AT is maybe warranted, but the concept is a strawman.

Easten divides AT history into four periods, and places Goldie conveniently in the third, but Goldie started having lessons in 1927 and so would belong to the fourth and "modern" period. This is just one of numerous inaccuracies in the book relating to the history of the Alexander Technique. She puts forward many claims without backing them up with evidence. She for instance claims that Alexander didn't see "directions" as a fundamental. This is not correct, of course.

The third part begins with a chapter on inhibition. This is possible the most useful material in the book. Easten presents games/explorations throwing a ball. This is not very original as most teachers have probably done something similar. But Easten's variations, the explanations, and the details, are excellent. Thankfully, you are not asked to pull yourself into improved alignment before you start. Then follows a chapter on voice, also with very useful explorations.

The last chapter is about how to approach hands on teaching. Again, there are lots of useful advice. Unfortunately, this chapter is steeped in pseudoscience. Easten seems to believe it is a good idea to mention quantum physics. Easten even presents her own interpretation of the Copenhagen interpretation! In fact, I have never read another Alexander Technique book so full of pseudoscience, and I have read most of them. On the back cover we can read that "[t]he new scientific theories described will help the reader accept these very different physical experiences". The pseudoscience has a purpose, then.

I read Twelve Fundamentals on and off over a period of more than two years. I tried out the "explorations" and watched the accompanying videos (which are well made). But now I wonder if it was worth the effort. Easten has tried to grasp the "whole elephant of the Alexander Technique". But it is her personal species of the AT, with some very weird mutations, and I'm not sure the rest of us should bother. It would have been better if she did like Miss Goldie and kept to the core elements of the Alexander Technique, which she handles brilliantly, and left out the speculative rubbish.

Related blog articles
Ancient Wisdom
Caniosacral Therapy
Eyebody part 1

Literature

Easten, Penelope (2021) The Alexander Technique: Twelve fundamentals of integrated movement. Handspring Publishing Limited.

Alexander Technique and the Centrifugal Force

(This article is written primarily for Alexander Technique teachers).

An integral part of my job as an Alexander Technique teacher is to explain what the Technique is and how it works. I always try to find new ways of explaining things. Literature on the Technique is a source of inspiration. Sometimes I come across ideas that are good, others that are not so good, and sometimes ideas that are intriguing.

In her book The Actor's Secret, which in my view is a fairly good book on Alexander Technique for drama students, Betsy Polatin writes:

We live in a gravitational field, and therefore we are subjected to the forces of both gravity and antigravity. The force of gravity pulls us toward the earth, and the spinning of the earth creates an opposite, centrifugal force pushing outward. While gravity may give a downward, grounding pull, antigravity influences everything with an upward direction, including plants, trees and human beings (Polatin 2013 p.45).

Gravity and the centrifugal force creates "suspension and support" according to Polatin:

The intersection of these two forces creates suspension and support in the body. As you allow your neck to be free, your head frees upward so that your torso lengthens and widens. The rest of your body releases slightly downward toward the ground. The ground then supports you, and that support carries up through your legs, your spine, and your head. The forces of gravity and antigravity act on your body to create suspension from the top of your head, and support moving through your feet from the ground (ibid).

In her more recent book, Humanual she presents the same concept:

We live in a gravitational field, including gravity and antigravity, and we need to adapt to that field to be upright. … Gravity aims down with a centripetal force towards the centre of the Earth, while the spinning planet emanates a centrifugal force away from the planet called antigravity (Polatin 2020, p.101).

Naturally, Polatin thinks the centrifugal force has a role to play in how we use ourselves, and that it is relevant to Alexander Technique hands-on teaching:

How do you feel your own weight? It is a delicate balance between the centrifugal force (antigravity) coming up from the Earth, and the centripetal force (gravity) coming downward toward the Earth. This means you would feel weightless if you were simply allowing the universal forces to act. This is sometimes hard to feel unless you have had a direct (hands-on) experience of this with a qualified Alexander Technique teacher, or some other skilled practitioner who could help you experience yourself this way (Polatin 2020 p.222).

Where on Earth

The educated reader will have spotted Polatin's mistakes. But I find her attempts at explaining our experiences intriguing. If we define gravity as a centripetal force we could indeed say there is a centrifugal force working in the opposite direction. Polatin gives a quote in Humanual:

I find it fascinating that our bodies are so affected by the planet. Take, for example, this little nugget of information from a space science archive: "If the Earth were not spinning, you would be heavier, as you would feel the whole force of gravity. Since there is more centrifugal force at the equator to cancel gravity, your overall weight at the equator versus at the poles is even less. If you weighted 100 pounds at the North Pole on a spring scale, at the equator you would weigh 99.65 pounds, or 5.5 ounces less" (Polatin 2020 p.104).

As an Alexander Technique teacher I wonder if this means the technique works best at the equator, and not at the poles, (where there is no centrifugal force). And what about us living at 60 degrees north?

Understanding the physics

Contrary to what you might think at this point, Polatin does seem to understand the basic physics. In Humanual, (which is strictly speaking not a book on the Alexander Technique, albeit heavily influenced by it), Polatin writes:

It is less known that physicist Isaac Newton, in his later years, conceived of gravity as a mutual attraction between the mass of objects. In other words, because of gravity, objects act in relationship to one another, not independent from one another. This gravity is intrinsic to the interaction between two or more objects. There is some gravitational force between you and the sofa, or the planet and the sofa. In fact, there is gravity between every object in the entire universe and every other object. … In truth, without gravity we would be floating in space like astronauts. Gravity gives us the mutual attraction of an equal pulling of two objects towards each other (Polatin 2020 p.219).

I have not been able to verify whether Newton actually changed his theory, but Polatin is correct that gravity is always equal and opposite. And, as far as we now, that it works at infinite distances, although it is extremely weak compared to other forces.

Polatin also have an understanding of the ground reaction force. In The Actor's Secret she writes:

As much weight or mass as I put down into the earth, the earth matches that mass with an upward force. … The analogy is easy to see if we use water, another surface on the earth, instead of land. Picture a boat floating on the water. The boat is supported by the exact amount of force that it exerts on the water. Thus we say it is floating. Given this analogy, it is interesting to note that one of the common phrases spoken after an Alexander session is, ''I feel like I'm floating" (Polatin 2013 p.45).

I think this is a neat explanation. Although we are not floating objects, it gives us an idea of supporting force. I use a similar explanation when discussing the concept of support with pupils. I ask them to consider the fact that they can't walk on water, (at least as far as I know), but they can walk on ice. The surface meets our weight with an equal and opposite force.

It can be useful to imagine that this force or "support" is travelling up through the body, as Polatin describes:

Obviously, the ground is under you, but it might not be so obvious that the ground is under you and supporting you. Let the support come up through you. Receive it all the way up. … Feel the support rise up through ankles, knees, hips, whole back, torso, arms, neck, and head. Then let your head turn, and see what the world look like with support from the ground (Polatin 2020 p.104. See also Polatin 2013 p.51).

This way of thinking can be particularly useful for people who tend towards hypermobility. We should be careful, however, to point out that this is something we imagine. The contact forces always being equal and opposite means they are not actually moving up or down.

We should have the same caution regarding Polatin's centrifugal force. It may be inspiring and practically useful for some to imagine being levitated by such a force, but what Polatin suggests doesn't make sense.

Not making sense

In Humanual, Polatin claims:

We all get the support from the same place - the centrifugal force from the spinning of Earth is the "up" pressure from the ground (Polatin 2020 p.241).

This is not correct. Polatin confuses centrifugal force with the ground reaction force. This is odd, because they are inversely correlated. if we increase the centrifugal force, we decrease the ground reaction force, or "support" from the ground. At the poles there is no centrifugal force, we weigh a little bit more and there will be a higher ground reaction force. But according to Polatin, there will be no support from the ground at the poles!

Polatin is also mixing up different pairs of forces. She combines the "down" of gravity with the "up" of the ground reaction force. These are two different forces acting on the same body. Newton's third law is about equal and opposite forces between two bodies (as for instance your body and the Earth).

Gravity makes up one pair of forces, consisting of equal and opposite pulls between your body and the earth. Then you have contact forces like the ground reaction force. Standing still, it is equal to your weight. It is local, so while there will be gravity at work between the whole of the Earth and the whole of your body, the ground reaction force acts only between your feet and the ground. (There are other contact forces inside your body, of course, which gradually diminishes towards your head as the weight from above diminishes).

We could say, as Polatin does, that there is a third pair of forces, the centripetal and centrifugal forces. Gravity can be seen as acting like a centripetal force, and because of Earth's rotation we could say there is an opposite centrifugal force. But these are not equal. For the centrifugal force to cancel out gravity, the Earth would have to rotate approximately 17 times faster. This will be the effect at the equator only. The centrifugal force at the poles would still be zero.

A vitalistic centrifugal force

Interestingly, the centrifugal force doesn't actually exist. It is a "fictional" or "pseudo force". Polatin sometimes labels the centrifugal force "antigravity". (See for instance Polatin 2013 p.45; Polatin 2020, p.101, and p.222). As far as we know today, antigravity doesn't exist either.

Polatin writes about the centrifugal force almost as if it is something tangible and material: "… the spinning planet emanates a centrifugal force away from the planet" (Polatin 2020 p.101). It is "pushing outward" (Polatin 2013 p.45), "moving from the planet Earth toward the sun" (Polatin 2020 p.104). The extensor muscles "lift the body upward, away from the spinning centrifugal forces of Earth" (ibid p.22). Likewise, gravity seems to be "the force of outer space (ibid). "coming downward toward the Earth" (ibid p.222). Polatin asks the reader to "[r]emember the mutual attraction between gravity and the earth" (Polatin 2013 p.203).

She also likens the centrifugal force with "air gases":

In the image from space, Earth looks like a big balloon with a thin crust upon which we live. The air gases in that balloon are pushing outward, and we feel that as support (Polatin 2020 p.241).

I believe these description stems from Polatin's vitalist worldview. Vitalism is a main ingredient in Polatin's book Humanual in which the "life-force" plays a central part:

All the bodily functions … constitute one large network carrying out multiple individual roles to … keep the organisms life-force thriving and resilient (Polatin 2020 p.xxvi).

Polatin carries this concept into her physics. She claims gravity and the centrifugal force ("antigravity") is "the energetic connection between heaven and earth" (Polatin 2020 p.210). Posture is "based on the interaction and flow between gravity and antigravity, and our human reflexes" (ibid p.146). You receive the support from the centrifugal force as you "plug into Earth" (ibid p.104). "When a connection is made, the energy from the earth spreads up your legs, into your torso and arms, through your neck and head, and out into the world" (ibid p.137).

At the beginning of Humanual she declares:

Everything is connected energetically, according to ancient wisdom as well as modern neuroscience and quantum physics research (ibid p.11).

Previously I have written about vitalism in Alexander's writings. Polatin is an example of vitalism among present day Alexander Technique teachers. Many influential teachers of the technique have been vitalists. A vitalist view seems to go well with the day to day practical work. But when trying to explain the technique in a more "scientific" way, it can, as we have seen, go terribly wrong.

We all make mistakes

We read in the author's biography at the end of Humanual:

Betsy leads international trainings where she presents her unique and revolutionary fusion of ideas: scientific knowledge combined with ancient wisdom and intuitive human creativity (Polatin 2020 p.259).

Polatin is definitely creative. The common mistake is to confuse ground reaction force with gravity. Confusing it with the centrifugal force is very original.

Polatin's knowledge and understanding of the science of physics is limited. Invoking quantum physics, as she does in the beginning of Humanual, is a particularly typical sign of ignorance.

Her strong side seems to be knowledge and insights into emotions and trauma. She has for many years collaborated with Peter A Levine, the founder of "Somatic Experiencing". Her insights are apparent in both The Actor's Secret and Humanual. As mentioned before, The Actor's Secret is a fairly good book for drama students. Humanual contains many "EX-plorations" and "EX-ercises" that can be useful for anyone.

It is a shame that these books are tainted by factual errors. They deserve better. I don't think we should put all the blame for the mistakes on Polatin. The fact that Polatin could make a mistake in a book published in 2013 and then not only repeat the error, but elaborate on it, in another book seven years later, is a symptom of a general problem within the Alexander Technique teacher profession: too little scientific literacy and too little critical thinking.

Related blog posts

Vitalism in the Alexander Technique Part 1
Ancient Wisdom

A Dark Chapter

Craniosacral Therapy

Links

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_reaction_force

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_(physics)

Literature

Polatin, Betsy (2013) The Actors Secret: Techniques for Transforming Habitual Patterns and Improving Performance. North Atlantic Books.

Polatin, Betsy (2020) Humanual: A Manual for Being Human. Waterside Productions.

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.

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.

Vitalism in the Alexander Technique - Part 1

Vitalism in the Writings of FM Alexander

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. 

Slowly, as knowledge and understanding increased, the ghost of vitalism was exorcised from sciences like biochemistry, physiology, neurology, and medicine. 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.

Vitalism in the Alexander Technique

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 seems fairly common 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 vitalism among Alexander Technique teachers and contribute to a professional discussion.

Alexander's vitalism

The clearest example of vitalism in Alexander's writings 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 apparent belief in the existence of a ‘vital essence or life-force’, is and indication of 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.(7)

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.(8)

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.(9) 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.(10)

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.(11) 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”(12) 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).(13)

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.(14) Maybe one of the reasons was to avoid its inherent dichotomy. 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.(15)

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, 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)Tim Kjeldsen comments on Alexander's definition in his article ”Psycho-physical Unity.“ (Rennie, Shoop, Thapen 2015):

It may be objected that Alexander's physiological knowledge is deficient here, since the energy used for muscular activity is stored in the muscle itself in the form of ATP, and is therefore merely released by the nervous impulses reaching it from the brain. But of course, the nervous impulses are forms of energy, too, and these, are clearly necessary to the use of the mechanisms (Kjeldsen 2015, p.177).

David Moore mentions the different interpretations of Alexander's definition in his book Yoga and the Alexander Technique:

[…], in the Alexander Technique we don't talk of prana or life energy, simply because it is not a concept that is required for practice of the technique. When Alexander refers to “conducting the energy” in the quote at the top of this section, this could be interpreted in contemporary terms as sending the instructions via the nervous system, or in traditional yogic terms as activiting a pranic force. In its practical application, the precise framework used for explaining this is not important (Moore 2015, 30).

(8) 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).

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

(10) 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).

(11) 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.

(12) 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].

(13) 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).

(14) 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.

(15) 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.

Kjeldsen, Tim. (2015) ”Psycho-physical Unity.“ In Rennie, Shoop, Thapen (eds), Connected Perspective: The Alexander Technique in Context. (pp.171-182 ) Hite Ltd.
Moore, David. 2015. Yoga and the Alexander Technique - Intelligent, injury free yoga. Einstien's Moon.
Maunder, Alex (2002) Let Your Life Flow. The Physical, Psychological and Spiritual Benefits of the Alexander Technique. The C. W. Daniel Company.

Rennie, Shoop, Thapen (eds) (2015) Connected Perspectives: The Alexander Technique in Context. Hite Ltd.
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.