During the time when I was training and in the years immediately afterwards – so between 1981 and 1990 – Alexander lessons were generally spoken of within the profession as “education”. Currently, and in recent years, there is much more emphasis on the Technique as “therapy”. Alexander himself seemed to place his ideas, theory and practice firmly in the domain of “evolution”. In this post I would like to explore these three aspects of Alexander’s discoveries: therapy, education and evolution.
Lessons are certainly therapeutic. Right from the very start, people experience a release of muscle tension and a calming of the nervous system. There is now evidence from trials to support what teachers have known for a long time: that lessons are helpful in reducing back and neck pain. Some teachers are drawing attention to the benefits of lessons in helping to deal with trauma. I think it would be fair to say that the majority of people come to the Alexander Technique looking for help in resolving mostly musculo-skeletal complaints.
The educational aspect relates to the idea that the pupil is learning something rather than receiving treatment. Our aim as teachers (we still in the UK call ourselves “teachers”, though in some other countries that is no longer the case) is surely to teach our pupils how to look after themselves and go on improving on their own. The balance between “educational” and “therapeutic” can fluctuate from lesson to lesson and even from moment to moment within a lesson – according to the needs of the pupil and the states of both pupil and teacher. I remember the late Adam Nott once commented that: “When I’m tired, it’s therapy. But it’s good therapy!”
Many musicians come to the Technique because of a physical complaint but then discover that it is also a valuable tool to improve their practice and performance. Therapy elides seamlessly into education: the learning of a skill.
There are other mind-body disciplines which, though not in themselves therapies, have therapeutic effects, for example Tai chi ch’üan – originally a martial art but often studied with no intention to apply it in that way.
The evolutionary aspect of the Alexander Technique is more nuanced still. Let’s pause here to examine the etymology of our three terms;
- Therapy, from from Greek therapeia – curing, healing
- Education, boasts two distinct etymologies, both from Latin: 1) educare, meaning “to train” and 2) educere, meaning “to draw out”
- Evolution, from the Latin evolvere – unroll, roll out
A more general meaning of evolution is “gradual improvement”, with the sense of “development”. Very appropriate, one may say, for our work!
In his writings Alexander made many references to evolution in the sense of the evolution of the species. It was, arguably, the zeitgeist of his time and any major theory about human beings needed to be understood in the context of Charles Darwin’s theories. But is there any evidence that human beings are still a work in progress with regards to evolution? Are we any more developed as a species than the cultures that built the pyramids, produced the pre- and post-Socratic philosophers, the Roman orators or the founders of the great religions from the Far and Middle East? No, in my opinion, we are not! There are many theories about general evolution 1 but it is more relevant to consider any evolution that is going on now as only of a personal nature. And what is meant by that? What is “personal evolution”? How does it differ from, for example, gaining expertise in something?
Watching Roger Federer glide across a tennis court to hit an impossible winning shot or Rudolph Nureyev seemingly suspended in mid-air whilst leaping across a stage or Yo-yo Ma performing a Bach cello suite – it is evident we are in the presence of remarkable talent and skill, even greatness. Is that representative of some kind of personal evolution? Is it something to do with consciousness or spirituality? If I live my life more consciously, making real choices, being present in mind and body – does something become more refined? Am I evolving? What do Alexander’s discoveries have to offer in this regard? Have we as a community tried to really explore all three aspects of his teaching?
Certain other disciplines – such a Qi Gong , Yoga or Mindfulness – retain a link with their roots in spiritual practice, and spiritual development is arguably the only real personal evolution available to human beings. In neglecting the developmental aspects of Alexander’s ideas – and a high degree of refinement and subtlety is indeed possible – in favour of lauding its therapeutic and performance-enhancing aspects, have we brought about an unnecessarily narrow perception of what we can offer? Are we even neglecting these aspects within our own profession?
These are thoughts I would be pleased to discuss with those who may be interested.
Notes
- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-may-become-of-homo-sapiens/
Upward Thought 
Recent Comments