Why Alexander Technique is a Silly Name for Our Profession - Part II

Don’t take me tooooo seriously - I’m having a little fun here…

In Part I of this series - well, maybe it’s a series - I asked: is a pianist practising the Alexander Technique when they update to an age-appropriate behaviour? 

Often when a pianist moves back their stool - because they are still behaving as though they have child-length arms - they get an immediate “Alexander” experience: a weird but wonderful feeling of freedom. Read more about that here:

https://atsuccess.com/blog/2022/08/our-work-about-behaviour-or-how-get-skinny.html

Did they need an Alexander teacher to suggest that?

And if they didn’t, can we still call this an Alexander Technique lesson? The pianist recognised a habit, inhibited an old behaviour, directed into a new one and gained an odd but freer sensory experience. So if that is not an Alexander lesson, what is?

So. Are we all wasting our money?

This confusion is one reason why I claim that “Alexander Technique” is just about the worst name we could give our profession - because it doesn’t represent the essence of what we do. Many other methods and techniques could fit into our…

Wait. We can’t even all agree on a definition. Hmmm….

This is all forgetting that “Alexander Technique” - as a name - frightens the bejeezus out of anyone brave enough to have asked what we do for a living. So anyway, just how is our fabled “technique” unique?

Oh, it’s in the books you say. 

Alexander wrote “Evolution of a Technique” in UOS didn’t he?

Well, yes honeypie he did. Are you going to patent that? Good luck.

Let’s find out why by breaking it down a little…

1st - FM recognised a harmful habit. Mr Macdonald called it “Recognition of Habit”. Of course, no one has done that before. Oops - yes they have. Buddha recognised suffering 2,500 years ago. No patent on that. 

NEXT !

2nd - FM’s harmful habit was head back and down by shortening the torso, affecting his voice. Hmm… THAT is original. Use affects Functioning. Of course, in ballet the concept is ascetically common, and in equitation too - but for the horses, not the riders. 

So let’s be generous and give that one to Alexander !

3rd - FM couldn’t make a new behaviour until he stopped doing his old behaviour. Inhibition. Can’t give him that one, sorry. Anyone who’s been to an AA meeting, visited a cognitive therapist, or done any of a thousand different therapies knows that. 

Strike 1 FM, sorry.

4th - FM also needed to practice a new way of thinking to replace his old thinking. Giving Directions or Orders he called it. Are you honestly going to argue that this methodology is unique to Alexander Technique? Good luck with that.

Strike 2 !

(Of course, there is a profound scientific discovery tucked away inside this, but you rarely hear that from the mouths of Alexander Technique teachers. More on this later.)

Which brings us back to a tired old argument - how is Inhibition different from Direction? As Marj commented to me one day: “If I move my head forward and up, haven’t I already inhibited it going back and down?” And blah, blah, blah - off we go again.

Lastly - getting back to Alexander’s “Evolution of a Technique” - FM realised he couldn’t trust his feeling to guide his reasoned-out behaviour. You think that’s original? You obviously have not studied the property market. Any professional investor knows (s)he/they must ignore any emotions about a property and instead buy with a conscious, reasoned-out behaviour. And there are soooo many more examples of FM’s insight at play in other domains.

Sorry baby - you can’t patent that one either.

STRIKE 3+ & OUT !

Wait. 

What about all the intelligent observations, thoughtful analysis and behavioural experimentation that Alexander Technique teachers relish? Is THAT original to Alexander Technique?

No. It’s called scientific method silly, and it started with Aristotle in ancient Greece.

So what then, dear reader, is the essence of what we do?

Oh yes, it does exist. Of course.

Stay tuned.

*These are “diets” based on behaviour rather than food selection; for example, 5:2 = 2 days out of 7 eat only a 500 calorie meal; 16:8 = eat within 8 hours, fast for the remaining 16; OMPD = One Meal Per Day. 20:4 is basically 16:8 for the already skinny ascetics.

**An ‘Andover Educator’ is a practitioner of a learning system designed by Barbara Conable, based upon bodymapping ideas. BodyChance’s BodyThinking course in Japan is founded on the same premise.