by George I. Lister

 

The following is an excerpt from a discussion at the Northern California Center for the Alexander Technique which was recorded April 9, 2010. It is based on Walter Carrington’s “Yin and Yang” recorded at the Constructive Teaching Centre (London), June 17, 1992 and published in The Act of Living (Mornum Time Press).

 

In this talk, Walter suggests to us as teachers of the Alexander Technique, that the best use of our time is to observe our students regardless of whether they’re first timers or have been coming for a long time. He also offers the suggestion that we not particularly rush right in to share these observations with our students. The reason for this is that when people think they are doing something wrong, their first reaction is likely to be to try to fix it. If we make the observation that a student is pulled down or collapsed, he is likely to want to “stand up straight” as this is the popular remedy. If she is tense and rigid, she will likely attempt repair by sagging and collapsing; if they are leaning to the one side, they are likely to lean to the other to compensate. If we don’t dispel them of this notion and they have spent the week working hard at it, they are going to want to know whether or not they are in better shape. Of course, we don’t know whether they are as we aren’t likely to recall what shape they were in the week before.

The alternative to this is to simply observe your student and give both him and you the opportunity to get to know each other. There is much to be learned by not rushing in, and by giving the student and teacher time especially to think of themselves and not try and do too much. It is likely to be more useful to the student if you can support her to think about herself, rather than doing the thinking for her. It is likely to be much more encouraging if by our decisions to leave things alone, the student can begin to find his own way. Improved use of him or herself is more likely to follow.

Participating in this discussion were Jeanne Benioff, Greer Ellison, Peter Estabrook, David Levitt, Daina Block, and George Lister

 

 

 

The following is an excerpt from a discussion at the Northern California Center for the Alexander Technique which was recorded October 15, 2008.  It is based on a section of the chapter “Imperfect Sensory Appreciation”, from the book “Constructive Conscious Control for the Individual”, by F. M. Alexander, first published in 1923.

 

From our earliest days of study of the Alexander Technique we learned that a free neck is vital to the organized use of the entire psycho/physical system. We have learned that the direction “Free the neck”, is not something to be done; but rather a state of being necessary so that the entire system will work well. The logic seems to follow that if one frees the neck, everything else in our use of ourselves is destined to come along. And, unfortunately, this is where we risk going a bit off.

 

Alexander clearly states (p. 103, Constructive Conscious Control of the Individual, Mouritz edition),  that “a stiffened neck, in fact, is merely a symptom of general mal-co-ordination…” and, therefore, “any direct attempt to relax it means he is (we are) dealing with it as a cause and not as a symptom”…He goes on to say, ”Such an attempt will result in comparative failure unless a satisfactory coordinated use of the mechanism in general is restored.” In other words, if we’re carrying stiffness, pain, etc., we tend to recognize some particular area of ourselves which we consider to be the culprit. The tendency may be to focus on that specific area in the hope that we will find a solution so the pain will disappear. According to Alexander, dealing with this in such a direct way is not the answer. He mentions a stiff neck as a problem area, but we can probably apply this to any symptom (back, knees, etc.), as an indication that the whole system is out of coordination.

 

 We all come to the Alexander Technique for some reason – pain, stiffness, performance improvement, or simply a desire to develop ourselves. We may have tried many things to improve the situation in a direct way, but arrived at the Alexander Technique because they didn’t work to our satisfaction. The willingness to explore something new and in a new way, means that the principles of the Technique are already in place and have aided us with our decision. With a teacher’s help and guidance, we learn to build on this new direction.

 

Participating in this discussion were Lee Anne Welch, Greer Ellison, Jonathan Salzedo, Peter Estabrook, Kyleen Wolfson, and George Lister

 

 

 

The following is an excerpt from a discussion at the Northern California Center for the Alexander Technique which was recorded April 1, 2011. It is based on a conversation which took place at Ashley Place, London, November 4th, 1946, and included F.M. Alexander, Walter Carrington, and others. This memoir appears in Carrington’s diary “A Time to Remember, A Personal Diary of Teaching the F. M. Alexander Technique in 1946. It is published by The Sheildrake Press.

 

We can only imagine how exhilarating it must have been at Ashley Place during 1946. The war was finally over, and London was putting the pieces back together. Walter Carrington had escaped his harrowing wartime experiences, and upon his discharge from the air force that March, returned immediately to Alexander’s training course. Walter admits to not being in the habit of keeping a diary. But, he says that, “I realized that I was opening a new chapter in my life, or rather, reopening an old one. It seemed that the next few months were likely to prove momentous for me, and so I started to make a brief record of events.”

 

How fortunate for us.

 

About 6 months later during November of that year, Walter recounts a conversation in which Alexander says that “he had, at last, decided that we must cut out in future teaching all instructions to order the neck to relax or to be free because such orders only lead to other forms of doing.” He goes on to say, “If a person is stiffening the neck, the remedy is to get them to stop projecting the messages that are bringing about this condition and not to project messages to counteract the effects of the other messages.” He indicated the implied contradiction had worried him for a long time but, after working on Hallis that morning, he saw that it must be changed so all orders in future will be framed so as to emphasize ‘non-doing’.

 

Now probably from day one of our introduction to the Alexander Technique, we’ve heard about this idea of non-doing. And, there probably has not been a day gone by for all of us and certainly in this training course, that we’ve not thought about non doing, spoken about it, written about it, and practiced what we’ve all considered to be a very good idea. We have come to understand that Alexander’s directions (neck free, head forward and up and so on), are not what we should expect ourselves to do; but rather states of being that are available to us when we do not interfere. We’ve learned that to try to immediately prove to ourselves that we are doing a good job following these directions, only risks trying to do too much, so we are doing our best to not create unrealistic expectations. All this has been a part of our learning process in our study of the Alexander Technique.

 

Which makes it all the more shocking when Alexander himself states after many years of teaching, he has finally decided to cut out all direct instructions because of the concern that this may simply be another form of doing. Of course through much of his life and his career, he did not have the help and benefit that we gain from having teachers. It was all an open book to Alexander, so many insights about himself and his use may have been a long time coming. This realization should be quite liberating to us, as we and our students are frequently tempted to harshly judge our progress through the education of Alexander’s Technique. However, it seems FM himself was comfortable with what there was to be learned even after 60 years of teaching, and we can certainly take this important example from him in our own passage.

 

Participating in this discussion were Jeanne Benioff, David Levitt, Gail Gurman, Peter Estabrook, Jared Mundell, and George Lister