...if that's what we do."

This is the conclusion of a message sent to the AT-list by Alun Thomas. Even though I'm not a teacher, I couldn't agree more with this statement and with the entire line of thought in his message. I've included it below; there's much that I want to say about it, but I first need to think of how to put that in writing.

Here's Alun's message- quite a read, but well, well worth it:

"Picking up on the interesting discussion about FM's ideas in context,
it's clear that all new ideas and human endeavours (must?) exist in a
context. They extend our boundaries though defining them, but less
obviously, often and critically, in the same direction that we're
already going. To use a musical metaphor, Beethoven and Mozart and a number of other 'luminaries' composed music that emerged out of similar parallel contexts to the 'body-minders' - their style, to a certain extent was fertilsed and informed by many (pre) classical composers who wrote some lovely, tonally acceptable and for the time unusual music . Their music, however, was significantly different in form AND content.

It's quite possible to mistake, at a distance, the work of such composers as Mozart, Beethoven and Haydn for any 18th century musician. However, more careful perception, (which implies distance), will not yield the breadth and range, architecture and control, that are of a different order of significance to the culminating genius of these three composers. These three work with similar tools, notes and rhythms, violins and bassoons, yet 'breathe air from another planet'. They are a different species, albeit a product of their times. They are also defined and conceptualised, conveniently and for labelling purposes by the time in which they live.

So too, in a sense, is Alexander's work defined by the area in which he worked as well as by his time, but must also be contrasted, because profoundly different, with Feldenkrais and others. All involve approaches that consider the body generally, use similar tools (from a distance) and are implicit and explicit in that we live in our bodies, express ourselves using them, as opposed to just having one, and that they are in the service of higher consciousness, whatever that may be. To the layperson (and certainly some of my beginning AT students and other non-Alexander friends) they are considered as part of the same job lot with the same description. This is unfortunate, though stimulating for serious Alexander teachers, but cannot be the public's fault. Everything does seem the same at a distance; when in the country for example, what is the distance at which sheep can be recognised as sheep and not just as an animal? To define the area in which we work - at the wrong distance and therefore by lack of understanding, is to leave us open to mis-representation, teachers open to confusion as to the area in which they work, and to risk losing the essential sublety of FM Alexanders vision. The implications are profound."



I have very much enjoyed Thomas Hanna's books amongst others and continue to broaden my perspective in these 'somatic' areas, if only to be more clear about what it is I try to teach and Alexander's vision.Yet how, time and time again, I see how far his work moves beyond the mentality enshrined in the fabled Emperor's new clothes, (which defines other disciplines), not by visiting the dry cleaners but by outlining a means of changing the Emperor so that s/he can be self governing and make choices about his/her behaviour. The contents of the tool box to the uninitiated are deceptively similar, (so too, a sheep and a horse or Mozart and his pupils' music at a certain distance), but to those who enquire at a range of significant distances it will be seen that they are profoundly different. They do different things.

Inhibition for example is conspicuously absent in Feldenkrais work and so too is primary control and, arguably, conscious direction. Wrong interpretation of our sensory experience is rightly understood but only described. Often, I cannot disagree with conclusions or headings throughout 'Awareness Through Movement'. Moreover, the observational exercises are fun to do! To see at the appropriate distance however implies taking time and to be truly present, leaving habit behind, implies inhibition and choice. Pre-determined movements with or without 'awareness' must be limited in such terms. Alexander's published work is conspicuous by it's absence of such exercises.

In reading Awareness Through Movement I am struck at the similarities of terminology. In fact some of it seems interchangeable with FM's. Moreover, it leads you into a more familiar type of working (exercise) where ther are things to do, and (uncommon) movements to be made - a definite sense in which if used concientiously, a Feldenkrais practitioner will be able to fill the lesson time without much trouble ;)). It's perhaps easier to market too, and write about! Moreover, it will hook the student who wants exercises into buying the said new set of clothes. Pupils may be easier to please and thus come back for more.

It's quite possible, it would seem, to have 'years of experience' of the AT without grasping the essential overarching nature of FM's profound vision. Many grasp a deeper meaning I'm sure, but I do see where it's absent and where we sell out to more easy options. Is it acceptable for example to give Feldenkrais sessions (as some teachers now do) under the name of Alexander Technique when they are in fact so very different?

Is the move from AT to Feldenkrais teaching or other 'similar -at -a-distance- techniques' a sign that some teachers lose their way? Alexander is at pains to describe the precarious nature of words in sensory learning - he offers illustrations in CCCI that are painstaking. Feldenkrais presents his exercises with no such cautionary preamble or discourse. He is asking us to 'feel' from the outset - and to use this to make changes. It's what I call 'meanswhereby - endgaining'. It glosses over the essentials that makes Alexander's work so precious.

To diverge, does it matter what we call what we do? No, but we should be clear about what we don't do in our name. Feldenkrais recognises anti-gravity (as does my accompanist who has an anti-gravity machine that he hangs upside down on to alleviate his backache). With 'effortlessness', well described we could not disagree. Alexander Technique is not about how to achieve effortlessness, though. Feldenkrais for one, recognised that words can be important in changing awareness. Alexander noted words' cussedness. Maybe vagueness is to be encouraged - how about calling ourselves Alexander Technique teachers, if that's what we do.

Best wishes ,
Alun

This drama student has written down a brilliant report of her first encounter with Alexander Technique. She provides a wonderful insight in how newbies experience AT.

Edit: at the AT e-mail list, there's a vivid debate going on about what to call AT, because to some of the subscribers, "Alexander Technique" is too vague. To me, this account of a first-time encounter with AT proves that it doesn't matter what you call it. People who are interested, develop some kind of inner drive; they will find AT eventually and learn what it is all about during their lessons.

And those people who don't give a %^$& about AT, like the student who wrote the account, are not going to be convinced if you give it another name.

I don't think many people make a conscious decision to study "The Alexander Technique". Rather, they act from some kind of drive, say, a physical problem, or a desire to learn more about themselves, and then go looking for something that fits their needs. And if they're lucky, they find a good AT teacher on their path.

Had a lesson yesterday, first one since four weeks, and everything went quite well.
- Jaw is part of my head, and should come along forward and up.
- Letting go is not the same as relaxation, especially not in my shoulders.

Well, yeah, that's it, basically. Not much more to say. Perhaps time to move on? I really miss talking about 'the other side' of AT; to me, Alexander was much more than someone who just discovered how to stand nice and straight. In his books, he shows a deep insight in human nature, and puts his finger on problems in society that we are still struggling with today, not because we don't know how to solve them, but because we don't want to, because we categorically refuse to take up our responsibility and act on it. Every time has its Alexanders, and we simply don't listen to what they have to say.

...I just browsed through my blog and found that some of you have put some wonderful comments below my entries. My apologies for not noting them earlier; I don't usually re-read this entire diary to scan for comments, and I don't receive automatic triggers when one of you adds a comment. In the next few weeks, I'll try to answer them.

In the future, could you perhaps put your comments below the most current entry in this blog, or leave a comment below the post concerned and one below the most current entry? In that case, I won't overlook them again.

In the meantime, I'll think of some way to let this blog notify me when someone has commented.

Thanks!

Maaike

This is one of the questions my first teacher refused to answer. Once he said: "as long as you keep asking, you can be sure that you're wrong". Sometimes, I think I begin to understand why.

I haven't had many Alexander lessons lately, but some weeks ago, during Chi Gong, I stood like I've never stood before. It's hard to explain, especially because standing seems like such a trivial thing to do, but the way I was standing was the only possible way I could stand, like a kind of proto-standing from which all other standing derives. There was simply no other way I could stand at that moment. It lasted only for a few seconds, but in that time, it did not even come to my mind to ask myself whether this was right. It simply was.

Yeah, that makes sense. I'm quite sure that it looked a lot better than it sounds here :-)