Therapy, Education and Evolution
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
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
Tips4Teachers – ‘Monkey’
The primary purpose of ‘monkey’ is to teach a pupil about the postural pulls which provide support for the body: head against hips against knees (‘against’ in the sense of ‘away from’ or ‘in opposition to’).
As many pupils will have various mis-uses which are interfering with these antagonistic pulls, it is advisable to take time to establish as far as possible each stage of the procedure.
Firstly, while indicating a ‘forward and up’ direction to the head, ensure that the pupil sends the knees ‘forward and away’. At this stage the torso is still vertical. If necessary, use a wall to help the pupil maintain an upright posture.
The second stage is to come forward from the hips without either the head pulling back or the knees pulling in. A helpful ‘trick’ is to ask the pupil to bend the knees ‘just another inch’ and as soon as he or she begins to do so, bring about a hinging at the hips with one hand on the head and one below the hip bone at the ‘crease’ between the pelvis and the thigh.
It is very advantageous to then reinforce the kinaesthetic experience of being in ‘monkey position’ by again having one hand just under the back of the skull and one at the hip whilst, being oneself in monkey, imparting a two-way (antagonistic) direction through one’s own expansive tendency. This should then be modified with one hand either behind the knee or just below the knee cap and one at the hip to indicate the opposition between hip and knee.
As the directions are imparted, the ‘orders’ or ‘directions’ should be clearly stated: head against hips, knees against hips.
© 2013 John S Hunter
Upward Thought 
Recent Comments