Berlin Congress Dialogues - Do We Need 1600 hours?

Perhaps we need more!

Doesn’t conventional wisdom say that Mastery needs 10,000 hours?* 

How about adopting 10,000 hours as our standard? Trainers could make a lot more money, and we could all take holidays in Greece and afford to come to Congresses.

Kidding.

I don’t know if it is true - but years back, I recall Erika Whittaker** explaining to me in Melbourne that a minimum of 15 hours weekly study was adopted to satisfy a rule that defined “full-time study” in Britain at the time. Maybe “3 years” arose from a similar context for a foreign visa? Did Barlow enshrine it into STAT’s constitution after FM’s death? Does anyone know?

I’ve read nothing about the origins of 1600 hours as a standard for training other than: 

“FM decided it.” 

Of course, on his first teacher training school, FM promptly ignored it too!

At the end of three years, Alexander declared that everyone needed another year.† Was it so he could put on another play? Kidding again. Instead of focusing on hours, how about the question: 

“How do you train competent teachers of the Alexander Technique?”

Like a sneaky politician, I will wiggle out of a tricky subject by saying: “I do not accept the premise of this question - therefore, I refuse to answer it.”

Haha - escaped !

Why wiggle away?

Here’s a thought exercise that helps explain why:

Can you come up with a sentence to describe what a Dentist does?

They fix teeth. It’s not hard, is it? When you have that definition, you can move on to ask: “How do you train competent dentists?”

Have we got a simple definition for Alexander Technique teachers yet? The question above assumes we do.

Dentists have defined their work, and so have academics, dancers, chiropractors, actors, physicists, singers, mathematicians, musicians, doctors, osteopaths, nutritionists, environmental activists - even bloody politicians can come up with a definition!

Good Lord - why can’t our Profession universally define the “Alexander Technique”?

Because it is not possible. 

And it never will be. 

It’s hopeless to try.

I’d go as far as to say that it is damaging to do so - it stiffens what is naturally fluid. 

How so?

Because for a “technique” to be effective, it needs to evolve and change. I heard a rumour that one notable figure at the Berlin Congress declared he might not return to another Congress because nowadays, there were too many versions of the “Alexander Technique”. I understand his frustration with that. However, I think it is healthy. It shows that we are following FM’s advice from his Preface to 1st Edition of Use of the Self:

***

“The results of the series of experiences I have outlined in Chapter I seem to me to imply that in the process of acquiring a conscious direction of the use of the human organism, a hitherto “undiscovered country” is opened up…” FMA, 1931.

***

Let’s keep letting our technique open up.

So what’s the answer? 

It’s so simple, it’s shocking.

Ask: What are Alexander’discoveries? §

Define those!

* Malcolm Gladwell popularised the 10,000-hour guideline in his book “Outliers” based on research by Anders Ericsson with musicians, and stories about Bill Gates & the Beatles. Daniel Coyle then reinforced it with neuroanatomical observations in his spectacular book “The Talent Code”. The big question surrounding this idea is “What is the quality of that 10,000 hours?” and “Why do some reach mastery at a faster pace?” The same arguments surround the more arbitrary 1600-hour “standard”.

** Erika’s auntie was Ethel Webb, Alexander’s secretary at the time. It seems credible that Ethel would have advised FM on a training structure that could satisfy the Foreign Office granting visas to foreigners for study in London, such as Marjorie Barstow from the USA.

† Marjorie Barstow was the only exception - FM declared she could return to the USA at the end of 3 years, and she did. Patrick Macdonald - also part of FM’s first training with Marj - was reputed to declare after getting a turn from Marj at the first Congress in 1986 at Stony Brook: “Marj was always the best of us.” Marj’s innovation of “activity teaching” seems to confirm this view. As part of researching this post, I stumbled upon a one-hour video of Marj teaching at the Stony Brook Conference, including giving a walking lesson to Judy Leibowitz! Enjoy:

https://alexandertrust.org.uk/aiovg_videos/stony-brook-congress-1986-marjorie-barstow-workshop-1/

§ I prefer to think of them as Alexander’s discoveries, which may evolve into principles with time, patience, and research-based evidence. Is it perhaps a tad eager to assume we already have principles without scientific validation?