Archive | History and Development RSS for this section
February 24, 2026  

Meeting Reality: An Imagined Contemporary Alexander

Alexander was not primarily a theorist but an experimenter. If he were working now — with access to contemporary language about motor control and anticipation — how might he describe what he discovered? What follows is an imaginative exercise: not a replacement for his words, but an attempt to speak enduring principles in contemporary terms.

When my voice again showed signs of strain, I had access to resources unimaginable in the nineteenth century. I underwent medical examination, worked with skilled voice teachers and therapists, and explored contemporary approaches to breathing, performance, and stress regulation. These were intelligent and often helpful. Yet the essential difficulty remained.

The problem did not lie in the vocal folds, nor in breathing mechanics, nor in posture as alignment. It lay in what occurred the moment I intended to speak.

Before producing a sound, my whole organism prepared itself. My neck stiffened, my head subtly retracted, my torso compressed, my breathing altered. These changes were rapid and largely outside awareness. One might say the nervous system predicts what is about to happen and organises in advance. Prediction is necessary. The difficulty arises when preparation becomes fixed before it is required.

No local correction resolves a problem that begins in premature commitment. When I tried to improve my voice directly, I merely added more doing. The underlying pattern remained.

Only when I learned to pause — to refuse the immediate habitual response to intention — did something different occur. This was not collapse or relaxation. It was the prevention of premature stabilisation — what I once called inhibition: stopping the wrong thing first.

When interference ceased, the relationship between head and torso changed. The head no longer pulled back and down, the neck no longer shortened, the torso lengthened and widened without effort, and breathing reorganised itself. In practice this proved simple: allow the head to go forward and up in relation to the torso, and the organism reorganises; interfere with that relationship, and distortion follows. The improvement in the voice was a consequence.

What became clear was that we do not simply act — we prepare to act, and that preparation often contains the very distortion we later attempt to correct. When habitual commitment is suspended, organisation remains adaptable. Action and adjustment unfold together rather than in rigid sequence. The head–torso relationship is a sensitive place where such fixation shows itself. Prevent fixation there, and interference reduces.

It has become clearer that much of our organisation occurs before consciousness catches up. By the time we intend to act, preparation is underway. Conscious influence therefore does not initiate action so much as prevent misdirection. There is a brief but workable interval in which preparation has begun but has not yet hardened. In that interval one can refrain from adding interference, allowing organisation to remain fluid rather than fixed.

The work therefore concerns more than voice production. It concerns how we meet each moment: through accumulated habit, stabilising in advance of what we expect, or through ongoing adaptability. This I would now describe as adaptive presence — not the absence of anticipation, but the refusal to let anticipation close too soon.

March 4, 2024  

Margaret Goldie Webinar

The video of the recent webinar featuring pupils of Margaret Goldie is now on YouTube.

It is also available on the FMAT Charity website.

 

April 10, 2023  

Our Link with Alexander: A Legacy Project*

While visiting a UK training course recently, the subject of the short films of Alexander came up. “Why on earth”, said the Head of Training, Ron Colyer, “did no one think of putting a microphone in front of him?”

Good question! Then, later in the morning, Ron and I were remembering our lessons with first generation teachers when one of his students said, “I want to put a microphone in front of you two”. I could see how interested the students were in hearing about these teachers through whom came all our direct knowledge of Alexander’s work. Many of us who did train or have lessons with that first generation are no longer young ourselves and if we wish to record our experiences for future generations, the time is now.

The Trustees of the Charity for the F Matthias Alexander Technique (aka AT Friends: www.fmatcharity.org) propose to hold a series of panel discussions on Zoom, each one dedicated to a teacher trained by FM Alexander. The panel will be made up of people who were students or pupils of that teacher and audience members will be able to pose questions. The event will also be recorded so that people unable to attend are able to view it.

The subject of the first such event, to be held in 2023, will be Margaret Goldie (14/12/1905 to 25/01/1997).

Did you have lessons with Margaret Goldie? If so, would you be willing to share some of your experiences with the world-wide Alexander community? Please contact me by email and let me know: john.s.hunter@gmail.com

* First published in STATNews, January 2023

April 22, 2020  

Being With Erika and Marjory Barlow, London 1998 #16

I forget the exact sequence of events, but I think it was at the Manchester STAT Conference that Marjory Barlow invited Erika to come and visit her when she was next going to be in London. When that time came Erika was staying with me, so I drove her to Marjory’s apartment near Swiss Cottage and joined them for tea.

After my spell of lessons with Marjory in the mid-eighties I had only intermittent contact with her at various STAT meetings. On one occasion, when I was still Chair of STAT, I asked Marjory to host a meeting of senior representatives of the different “streams” of the Technique at which the question of what to do about a school that was considered by some to have “gone rogue” would be addressed. Marjory had to play the role of “the authority”; the representative of the dharma, so to speak. Whilst the discussion about the various “goings-on” at the school in question was progressing, Marjory at one point gave me a dig in my ribs with her elbow and whispered, “Well you know what old Gurdjieff said don’t you; that sooner or later everything turns into its opposite, and this is an example of just that.” 1

With this in mind, and already by then being quite familiar with Erika’s views on a number of Alexander-related matters, I was anticipating another fascinating encounter. I had seen them together before of course; at Erika’s Memorial Lecture in 1985 (when they had a different recollection about the role of table-work during the Ashley Place training course), at the Brighton Congress in 1988 and more recently at the Manchester STAT Conference, but this was something more intimate. How were they going to interact? Given all that Erika and, to a lesser extent, Margaret Goldie had told me about the development of Alexander’s work and the split between the two groups of students at Ashley Place (see The First Training Course in 1931: a different perspective), I felt that here was an opportunity to gain some insight into the fruits of their different understanding and focus.

Most of the conversation was very light – chit-chatting about people they knew or had known. It was, in fact, at this tea party that I heard Marjory’s story about Margaret Goldie and FM’s ashes (see Lessons With Miss G, 10: Some Meaningful Tittle-tattle). At some point Marjory began to talk about the need to keep Alexander’s teaching just as it had been taught to them. I knew that Erika had a different perspective on this issue, and wondered how she might deal with it. But Erika could always find an angle from which to respond which neither complied with nor contradicted what another person was saying. She just moved the conversation seamlessly along – something at which she was a master. “Well” she would often say, “one has to get along with people.” What I witnessed in her, however, evidenced an inner freedom from reaction. She could allow another person to have their own opinion without it disturbing her equanimity.

Somehow the interaction reminded me of Hermann Hesse’s novel Narcissus and Goldmund 2; not by any means in the personal details of their lives – the parallel does not stand up to scrutiny as Erika could not at all be described as Dionysian any more than Marjory could be described as Apollonian. No! It was the fact that Marjory, despite the quarrel with FM in the 1950’s, had – like Narcissus in Hesse’s novel – stayed, as it were, “in the monastery” and risen to be the “abbot”, whereas Erika had, like Goldmund, gone out into the world in search of adventure and knowledge, and had a different understanding of Alexander, his ideas and life itself. Marjory had a mission; to look after the Technique and to transmit it in its purity; to not change a thing. Erika chose to put it and herself to the test in the maelstrom of Life, and thereby to hone her understanding on the wheel of experience. Both of these octogenarian “living treasures” were indubitably evolved human beings; not only did they have the wisdom which comes from a long life, but also they were replete with the palpable energies which ensue from several decades of work on oneself. I had and have tremendous respect for both of them.

My personal impression was that whereas Marjory was a very big fish in the Alexander pond, Erika swam free in the sea of life.

1. G I Gurdjieff (1866-1949). In his theory of Octaves, Gurdjieff states that “…we can observe how the line of development of forces deviates from its original direction and goes, after a time, in a diametrically opposed direction, still preserving its former name.”: In Search of the Miraculous, P D Ouspensky; published by Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., London 1950. See also www.gurdjieff.org.uk

2. See: https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/299/299707/narcissus-and-goldmund/9780141984612.html

© 2020 John S Hunter

November 14, 2018  

Cult of the hands

My friend and colleague Terry Fitzgerald, a fine teacher of both the Alexander Technique and Ballroom Dancing, told me while attending one of his classes many years ago that “a good dance teacher can make it work for you”. It’s true! When one begins to study and practice partner dancing it soon becomes apparent that there is a communication between leader and follower which is similar in many ways to that between teacher and pupil in an Alexander lesson. Intention, typically related to familiar outcomes – be they dance steps or, in our case, the rather more prosaic movement in or out of a chair – is transmitted through movement and touch. In both cases though, all parties need a basic familiarity with both the choreography involved and the language of the leader or teacher. In finer moments of Dance the delineation of roles becomes blurred; two people move as one, moved by and moving to the music. There is neither leader nor follower – reminiscent of that moment in an Alexander lesson when “It’s just happening”.

FM is reported to have come into the training course one day and announced to everybody that “Now I can give it to them whether they want it or not!”. Like Terry’s “good dance teacher” FM could “make it work” for his pupils.

It can be beautiful to watch gifted dancers moving together to music. Watching a couple of people performing their Alexandrian “pas de deux” can look rather bizarre, though for the trained eye there are nuances of significant change taking place.

Nevertheless, the process is largely one of becoming familiar with the nature of the messages and how to respond to them. Different lineages have different languages of touch and different choreographies, which can make it more difficult for teachers or students from one school to work with those of another than for most dancers to adapt to a new partner; it’s more like learning an entirely new dance.

Patrick Macdonald once commented that it did not matter which words one used to represent the directions, one could, for example, say to oneself “Coca Cola” instead of head forward and up – as long as the words corresponded to the experience. The teacher gives the experience and by a kind of association the words come to represent it. “Up to a point, Lord Copper,” for herein lies a trap. Unless and until pupils go through the process of rediscovering Inhibition and Direction for themselves, they will continue to seek out the sensory satisfaction that comes from the teacher’s hands. A good teacher can make it work for you, but also needs to know when not to, and when and how to help you find your own insights. Learning to respond to the teachers hands must, at some point, give way to learning to make your own decisions and respond to your own intentions.

Trying to teach without hands is fraught with difficulties as the Alexander brothers discovered in the early years. The attempt to explain everything in words can all get very complicated.

Hands-on work, the great gift of the Alexander Technique, has in some ways become its limitation. The medium has become the message. Although in its present form the Technique is indeed a boon for humanity, the evolutionary secret at the heart of it still has to be found in the depths of one’s own being, in places which cannot be touched by even the most gifted hands – but only by one’s own consciousness.

© 2018 John S Hunter

« Older Posts