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.

May the Force be with you

This article is a translated and rewritten version of the blog post "Kraft" in Norwegian from 2012. This version is written for Alexander Technique teachers.

Introduction

When someone comes for Alexander Technique lessons she is normally much too tense. ("She" is used throughout for simplicity but is meant to cover any pronoun). Naturally, we want to reduce the level of tension, and the focus often turns to not tensing up. This is in line both with the principle of the Alexander Technique of inhibiting unwanted reactions and also with common sense - if you don't tense up, you don't get tense.

Avoiding tension can turn into a problem if it means avoiding anything that requires use of muscular force. Activities in traditional Alexander Technique lessons have mainly consisted of sitting down and standing up. This is great for reorganizing the pupils musculoskeletal system, but apart from getting in and out of the chair, it doesn't demand any use of force on the part of the pupil. The pupil is not required to use the hands, and it is through the hands we very often exert force in daily life.

There are several good reasons for having the use of force as a theme in Alexander Technique lessons

1. It is useful for the pupils in their daily life. A lot of things we do requires a certain degree of physical force. The Alexander Technique is very useful in those situations.
2. It helps reduce unnecessary tension. Very often, too much tension comes from tension applied wrong, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. In that case, being clear about the right use of tension can help reduce or do away with the wrong tension.
3. It is useful for understanding the Technique. If you think the Alexander Technique is just a relaxation technique, you have missed the point.

Below I present a series of activities I use in lessons. The aim is to introduce the pupil to Alexander Technique thinking in relation to the use of force.

These are simple activities that can be done even with beginners. For advanced pupils they can be modified into quite sophisticated experiments. Sometimes I briefly go through all in one lesson just to present the principles. Even if the quality of performance is crude, going through this series of activities can make a huge difference in how the pupil, by the end of the lesson, deals with the demands of applying physical force.

Receiving weight through the hands

All activities begin from a neutral position, while doing "nothing". In a standing position, I ask the pupil to hold her hands out in front of her, palms up. I then place a heavy object on her hands. It should be sufficiently heavy to make the pupil sense the change in contact between the feet and the ground. I often use some telephone directories or a small chair.

The pupil's reaction is often to stiffen the arms, lean back from the hips and push the pelvis forward (and so on). I do not address these tendencies directly. There is a good chance they will be reduced indirectly during the process.

I make sure the pupil is aware of the change in contact with the ground and point out that the weight of the object now acts as part of her own weight. It has to go "through" her to reach the ground. We want to let that happen without doing anything unnecessary, which would mean stiffening, bracing or squeezing ourselves.

I take back the object and replace it with another fairly heavy one. This time the pupil will react differently. There will be less of the unnecessary reactions and so the pupil will stay better coordinated.

Lifting an object

I now give the pupil the task of lifting something. I don't put much emphasis at this stage on how well (or not) the pupil is lowering herself to pick up the object, only that she again starts from a neutral position. I ask her to first make contact with the hands and then see if she can take the weight of the object gradually.

The weight is transferred from the floor and into the pupil's body. The weight of the object is still in a way resting on the floor, but now via the pupil's feet.

The pressure of the weight of the object will squeeze and slightly expand the palms of the hands, (as well as the soles of the feet). I explain that letting the body expand is what we want, and it can help to imagine the back expanding just like the hands and feet.

Having the idea of letting the weight of the object cause expansion of the body connects the lengthening and widening with the actual force used to handle the object. This way the process of directing is naturally integrated into the activity and not something extra added on.

If the pupil happens to have a bag or backpack that is not too small, I have the pupil use this as the object to lift. An object in daily use can act as a nice reminder to apply the Technique in everyday life.

Leaning against a wall

The next step is to take weight by leaning with the hands against the wall. The pupil stands approximately arms length from the wall, lifts the arms and comes forward from the ankles to put a little bit of weight on the hands.

When leaning against the wall for the first time, the tendency will often be for the pupil to "relax" and collapse in the middle, the pelvis sagging forward.

I suggest to the pupil to imagine letting the "push" from the wall travel through the arms, though the back and legs and feet and into the ground. This is similar to the weight of an object "travelling through" the body when holding it. The "push" from the wall causes the hands to expand and we can imagine that it also helps the shoulders and back to widen.

We can think of this as allowing the workload be distributed across as large an area as possible, sharing the work among as many muscles as possible.

The second time the pupil perform the activity of leaning against the wall, sufficient tone is maintained and the body stays integrated.

This activity can be varied in a lot of ways. The distance to the wall can be changed, arms can be bent or not, legs bent or not.

Pushing or pulling

I next have the pupil actively pushing something. In my office, I have a clothes stand with a fairly heavy stone base. I ask the pupil to push this to make it slightly tilt, and then play around with receiving the "push" back, thinking of utilizing this push to let the body expand. If done well this becomes a dance of two integrated masses- the stand and the pupil's body.

A useful variation is to pull on the stand instead of pushing. The direction of forces have changed, but the same kind of thinking is required. It can be used in all situations.

A variation I use here, If the pupil is up to it, is to have the pupil lift the clothes stand. It is quite heavy, but can be lifted with one hand by most adults.

Lastly, I have the pupil push me. We stand facing each other, feet placed diagonally, with one hand raised. This is the same position as used in Tai Chi "push hands". This activity reveals the level of the pupil's thinking. It becomes very clear whether the pupil expands or contracts, is "going up" or "pulling down". Beginning from neutral can be extra challenging. The pupil is often eager to try to push me over, and will start pushing way too soon.

Summing up

I often end the lesson or series of activities with something practical, like moving a chair or having the pupil pick up her bag or her shoes. The process has gone from passively receiving weight, via actively pushing (or pulling), to awareness of the use of physical force in daily activity.

Acknowledgements

The idea for the way of working I have described here is originally not my own. One of my sources is Carolyn Nicholls, especially the "directed activities" we did during my training based on Tai Chi "push hands"; and a workshop with her and Stephanie Smith at the 2004 international congress in Oxford which was my first introduction to working with pupils with hypermobility. My other source of inspiration is Pedro de Alcantara, and especially exercises and experiments found in the second edition of Indirect Procedures, and his trilogy The Integrated Musician.

Related blog posts

Kraft (Norwegian)

Pass the pudding 

The Primary Movement

What is ‘the primary movement’?

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

A precursor

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

In a note to the text Sean Fischer writes:

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

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

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

Williamson also writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Each and every act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brown kept this sentence almost unchanged from the original:

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

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

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

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

Primary motive power

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

A Respiratory Method (c. 1905)

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

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

The Prevention And Cure Of Consumption (12 December 1903)

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

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

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

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

The Lady of the Deep C

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

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

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

The true precursor(s)

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

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

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

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

The first movement

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

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

Physical Culture and Body Building

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

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

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

Later movements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brown revisited

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

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

Brown's version of the quote from CCC reads:

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

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

Where did it come from

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How we got here

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

Related blog articles

A Dark Chapter

The Lost Element

An Advantageous Position

The Nobel Disease

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Online teaching

This article is written for Alexander Technique teachers. 

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

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

The misconception

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

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

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

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

The Technique and the methods of teaching it

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

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

Pros and cons

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

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

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

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

Teacher training

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Professional debate

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

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

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

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

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

Related blog articles

Chained to the chair

Literature

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