The Berlin Exercise

For a long time - as an Alexscovery teacher[1] - two things have puzzled me the most: 

1. How to think in an ‘Alexander way’; and
2. How to teach others to think in this way.

Alexander (FM) describes how he solved the first problem in “Evolution of a Technique”[2] and then spent his life perfecting a way to accomplish the second - by using his hands. But what if you can’t use touch - in a large group, online or giving a presentation? Can you communicate ‘Alexander thinking’ without touch? 

This is how I started my presentation…

 

The Berlin Workshops 

My opening question to participants at my practical workshops was:

“Which 3 joints are crucial for calibrating coordination?”

How would you answer?

1. Teachers got the first one quickly - almost by consensus - the Atlanto-Occipital joint (AO). Where the head joins the spine was easy, but the other two?
2. The pair of sternoclavicular joints - no one volunteered this, which doesn’t surprise me. When I work with beginners, over 90% do not know that their arms join their torso just below the neck. It surprises them to discover it.
3. The acetabulofemoral joints- but whoever calls them that? The hip joints, of course![3]

Before going on to describe the Berlin exercise, in Part A I describe the evolution of my teaching technology[4] that led to my choices. In Part B I explain the Berlin exercise in a way that allows you to use it in your teaching.

 

PART A - BACKGROUND 

Why Joints? 

FM left us with the concept of ‘giving directions’ as a process of ‘thinking-in-activity’[5] to bring about beneficial changes in our coordination. During my London training in the 1970s, I was taught that there were four directions along the lines of:

“Let the neck be free (1) so that the head can go forward and up (2) so that the back can lengthen and widen (3) so that the knees can go forward and away (4).”

As I analysed these, I became curious about three things: 

1. FM’s directions are binary - it’s head forward and up; it’s back lengthening and widening; it’s knees forward and away. This pattern of binary directions is repeated in the Berlin exercise.
2. FM’s directions are contiguous - each sentence links to the next stage with “so that”. My way of expressing this in the Berlin exercise is to ask for ‘consequential movements’, i.e. movements that precipitate other ‘consequences’ throughout your movement system.[6]
3. FM’s directions encourage muscle mapping - e.g. free your neck, lengthen and widen your back. In the Berlin exercise, I abandon this approach.

FM evolved his teaching technology to avoid verbally explaining the meaning of these words. Indeed - as Edward Maisel claims[7] - it was FM's inability to convey their meaning that prompted him to start using his hands. FM's solution can be summarised as follows: 

“Lead them into the experience so they can understand how to think.”

However, my aim[8] is precisely the opposite:

“Lead them into how to think so they can give themselves an experience.”

Ironically, the latter was how FM taught himself - who did ‘hands-on’ with FM? Therefore, I knew this approach was realistic.

 

Two Problems: Meaning & Speed 

The first problem to tackle was the vague meaning of FM’s four directions - both nouns and verbs. Readers can refer to my book[9] in which I documented my first clumsy efforts to clarify the precise meaning of Alexander’s four directions.

Let’s start with nouns - we use the word “head” as though everyone knows what that is. For everyday life, yes. For ‘Alexander thinking’, no. Try this exercise, which I did in some of my Berlin workshops…

EXERCISE - Draw Your Head. Do it now.

This often brings forth many drawings that are the same as the ubiquitous emojis we see on social media, i.e. 🙂. So what’s wrong with this emoji? It has no brain, yet this is how most people imagine their heads.[10] Therefore, when you tell new students to think about their head, they inevitably think about where their face is - which is more in the neck region! No wonder they get stiff.

And then we have the verbs. What does it mean that the head (with people probably thinking at the neck) goes forward and up? And when the back is “lengthening and widening” - how is it doing that? And then there is the noun problem again - what is a “back” actually? Where does it start and finish?

I realised the first step is to analyse Alexander’s four directions in a precise, universal language so we can debate them - the language of anatomy. This is hardly radical - anatomy is one of the oldest scientific disciplines, dating back to ancient Greeks!

Today there are better notational systems available, but they lack universal usage. AI and animation technology are slowly altering this necessity by creating accurate movement imagery - as I will discuss later, this is essential.

The second problem is speed - words do not influence us as quickly as images. At the Berlin Congress, Rachel Sullivan confirmed this in her Keynote on “Marketing the Alexander Technique”[11] - she drew on marketing research that showed our brain processes images exponentially faster than text. She was arguing for spending money on a logo, but what impressed me was that marketers already knew that humans respond faster to visual images than to text (i.e. language/words).

Alexander’s four directions are words expressing movement images - but they are still words. And the words are vague and open to widely different interpretations. So what would happen if I offered my students visual images instead? Wouldn’t that be quicker? Wouldn’t that make more sense to beginners?

But what images?

There are different ways we can visualize movement. I finally dismissed two of the most popular for reasons I will now explain.

 

Metaphoric Directions

Metaphor: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

(Google.com from Oxford Languages)

I generally avoid using metaphors. And the reason comes from the definition above “not literally applicable”. There is no string at the top of your head, heads don’t float, and we do not breathe into our stomach. I don’t deny that metaphors may initially be helpful, even powerful, but they are still essentially lies - or fantasies. In the longer term, metaphors are neither universally reliable nor sustainable. 

I live by the platitude - “the truth will set you free” - as an essential principle of my teaching. Over and over again in lessons, I discovered that optimised movement is a function of clarity. Clarity, in turn, is a function of accuracy. 

Think of it in the opposite way: lies sow confusion. Isn’t that true of our world today? So Alexandrian lies, even innocently expressed, will eventually sow confusion.

But what about muscles?

Muscles are actual, and they are responsible for movements. I started to think of them more often. After writing my first book in 1998, I found myself at the helm of a new teacher training school in Tokyo. I used this situation to delve deeper into this topic…

 

Muscle-Mapping Directions

I was always a muscle mapper. Since first studying with Don Burton during my training in the 1970s, I became obsessed with mapping muscles. Later in the 1980s, Dr David Garlick introduced me to the functional optimisations caused by the appropriate recruitment of red and white twitching fibres. I thought at the time this was a miraculous insight into Alexander’s work, and I later wrote about it at length[12]. I was convinced muscle mapping was the way to go.

It turns out I was wrong. What happened?

I began to notice that thinking about muscles was functionally confusing. In myself and students, focusing on muscle actions i.e. “lengthening and widening” and muscle states i.e. “free neck” tended to encourage introspection and stiffening. Something was missing. Finally, I had an epiphany which is embarrassing in its simplicity:

Muscles act around joints.

Understanding movement means knowing:

1. Around what joint(s) is a movement being actioned?
2. What ranges of movement are available around that joint(s)?
3. How do joints interrelate with each other in the whole movement?

Muscles mostly come in paired groupings - the agonist and antagonist groups - to operate movement around the joint: think flexion/extension, abduction/adduction or medial/lateral rotation. If you fail to grasp both groups, you are immediately at a disadvantage. However, thinking about joints avoids that problem - because joints dictate muscle actions! Why did such a simple concept escape me for so many decades?

That’s why I started with joints at the Berlin Congress.

 

But Why Those Three Joints?

Anatomists define two skeletons: the axial skeleton (head/spine) and the articular skeleton (arms/legs). These appear in Alexander’s four directions - first, the axial skeleton (head/spine) links to the articular skeleton (arms and legs).[13] Any request to organise your coordination needs to embrace the dynamic relationship between the axial and articular skeletons.

Over time I realised that the joints where the arms and legs effectively link into the axial skeleton are the most consequential for your overall ability to posturally configure your Self to do what you want to do. The concept of “consequential” is essential: although you are thinking of moving a mass around a precise joint location, the consequence of changes in direction of that mass at that joint will exponentially cascade throughout your entire movement system.⁶

To summarise thus far - without touch, Alexander's four directions are vague and imprecise words - and clearly, images work faster. I explored alternative directions by using ‘images’ such as imaginary metaphors or muscle actions or movements around joints.[14] Of the three, movements around joints proved to be the most universally reliable and sustainable choice. But which joints have the greatest potential to cause consequential, cascading effects on the movement system? Those crucial joints are situated where the spine interacts with the head, arms and legs. 

Now we come to the next conundrum - the whole ‘non-doing’ nature of ‘Alexander thinking’. How is that going to be instilled into this revised way of using images of movements around joints? So far what I am proposing could be dismissed as a new variety of Pilates, with some Alexander sauce added.

What makes it ‘Alexander thinking’?

The delivery system.

 

Binary Systems

A curious feature of evolved creatures is that they often deploy binary systems to accomplish results. For example, we have two functionally distinct brain hemispheres, two sets of limbs, two kidneys, two eyes and two ears - you find many examples when you reflect upon this.

This binary bias is reflected in our skeletal musculature. We have two types of skeletal muscle fibre:

TYPE I: slow-twitch “red” muscle fibres which are aerobic and resist fatigue;

TYPE II: fast-twitch “white” muscle fibres which are anaerobic and fatigue quickly.

Because of their ability to resist fatigue, then obviously slow-twitch fibres have a greater role to play in postural support; whereas the larger fast-twitch fibres deliver more power and speed when we need it. Every skeletal muscle has a sprinkling of both types, because both postural and power/speed needs may be required at different times.

But if both Types I & II are in every skeletal muscle, how is it decided which fibres are recruited?

And therein lies the problem. Postural support functions optimally with no conscious oversite. Postural support needs to happen automatically to match a fast-changing situation. If we have to think about it, we will fall over! However, skilled movements require conscious oversight - we learn by adjusting movements through voluntary trial and error. So it’s reasonable to posit a binary but functionally interdependent motor control system[15] to solve this problem of appropriate recruitment of Types I & II within each skeletal muscle.

The first of these binary systems is obvious - our voluntary movement system (VMS). We can voluntarily fire up any skeletal muscle group - even individual fibres if we practice - with a bias towards power and/or speed (TYPE II). However, when individuals try to sit up straight to improve their postural integrity[16], I posit that they dysfunctionally use VMS. I say it is dysfunctional because Alexscovery teachers have universally observed this approach as ineffective: after this effort to “sit up straight” a person invariably collapses more so than ever. We can speculate that they are using VMS inappropriately.

Let’s call this behaviour “fake postural control” because the main job of VMS is not postural - it is for learning new skills in an infinite variety of ways. So if VMS is fake postural control, what is our real postural control system?

Then we posit a second system with a bias towards recruitment of TYPE I skeletal muscle fibres for the purposes of postural support. Let’s call this our postural support system (PSS). PSS regulation of this kind mimics respiratory regulation - both are automatic and happen unconsciously, but we can override this automatic function at any time. For example, opera singers have mastered respiration as a consciously designed behaviour for singing.

In FM's case, he did not manage either respiration or postural support very well and ended with his famous “hoarseness” problem. It’s understandable that FM was initially fascinated with breathing, and then graduated to postural support - breathing requires postural support for optimal performance. It was FM's empirical-based personal behavioural research that led him to discover the true nature of PSS - that it is an automatic, unconscious and self-regulating system. Teachers report that FM was fond of saying: “The right thing does itself.”[17] FM further realised that “the right thing” in PSS had been overridden by behaviours brought about by interference from that busybody - the VMS.

Alexander was the first to discover the functional nature of this binary system.

Today, even the most sophisticated fitness practitioners remain blithely unaware of PSS’s existence - yes, as outrageous as that statement is, I assert it to be true from decades of teaching experiences. It helps to explain why it is so damm difficult to get anyone to see how Alexander’s process is so radically different from any other motor learning and control system. Of course, FM went on to find a solution to this problem.

Alexander further discovered that he could both prove and optimise PSS’s behaviour through touch. FM spent his life perfecting a “hands-on” method of teaching.

Of course, everyone knows of “the core” - those deeper intrinsic muscles so important to postural support - I don’t mean that. What I mean is that very few people - even those highly skilled - appreciate that this “core” is under the influence of PSS: an inaccessible, unconscious and automated system. Another way of making my point is to compare PSS to another automated system that “does itself” - temperature control.

Can you sizzle snow with your bare bottom?

Some Tibetan monks can. They melt ice while sitting in meditation in freezing temperatures by using a technique known as “g Tum-mo” or Tummo, which means ‘inner fire’. Through years of training and practice, these Tibetan monks can subject that system to conscious oversight. Alexander’s discovery puts you on a similar path - subjecting your PSS to conscious oversight.[18]

But how do you train an automated, inaccessible, unconscious system, that I posit PSS to be, if you are not going to use touch as a way to influence it?

 

Body Schema/Image - Pathway to Influence PSS?

Gurfinkel and colleagues proposed that tone and body schema work together to govern postural organization and provide a foundation for movement and balance.[19]

Tim Cacciatore, Patrick Johnson and Rachel Coen posit several mechanisms for influencing postural tone in their paper published in Kinetic Review.[20] Although published in 2008, “The Body Has A Mind of Its Own” [21] is an authoritative overview of the blossoming science that shows how imagery in the brain areas of body schema and body image have powerful effects on motor learning, control and behaviour. In 2021 “Body Schema & Body Image - New Directions”[22] documents the exciting possibilities of this growing area of research.

It turns out that clear, concise and accurate movement imagery may act as a powerful alternative to touch to influence your PSS’s functional ascendency.[23]

Therefore, in the exercise in Berlin - to lead others to ‘think Alexander’ - my task was to construct vividly clear movement images of what happens when we coordinate in cooperation with our PSS design.

 

PART B - THE BERLIN EXERCISE 

Before starting this exercise, I usually explain the ranges of movements at the three crucial joints I outlined above. You rehearse these ranges by training students to picture what happens at the crucial joint areas. Pictures, demonstrations and videos all contribute to illuminating a moving image.

With a larger group of 12 or more, it is effective to split the group in two and alternate each group doing each step - observing others is a powerful learning tool.

Step One: Everyday Walking (or Group A walks, Group B observes)

This sets up a kinaesthetic reference point for Step Two. Walking will amplify quality-of-movement changes. Usually, beginners are standing (or sitting) while the teacher touches them. While this is necessary for ease of communication, now we want students to experience how they can make effective changes while continuing to move. It sets them up to practice their ‘Alexander thinking’ the instant they leave your studio. 

Step Two: Reverse Alexander - Consequential Movement at the AO Joint & Below[24]

With beginners, the most effective instruction - after years of exploring alternate expressions - is this: “Lift up your chin (head back), then push it forward (neck down) as you walk.” Notice that I don’t say “stiffen your neck”, which is a form of muscle mapping and often ineffective. Instead, always talk about movement. 

In a new group - when first following the instruction - there is an almost immediate collective groan. This is a wonderful moment of recognition - so you must engineer this reaction without causing them any harm. In Step Four you will revisit this reaction and expand upon its meaning…

Step Three: Alternating AO Movements 

While everyone is walking, now instruct them to change the relationship between their head and spine. They have been lifting up the chin and pushing it forward to walk - now ask them to move the opposite way and restore the relationship as it existed at the start, all the time experiencing the different systemic effects these changes have while they continue walking.

Step Four: Feedback on Step Two/Three

I left this step out in Berlin as it was unnecessary for a group of teachers. However, with early learners, ask them to articulate their experiences. For example, if you have a large group, ask them to do this with each other first, then hear some of their stories with the whole group listening. As participants share, highlight different categories that their experience in Step Two illuminates:

1. Changes in quality-of-movement (slower, stiffer, harder to walk)
2. Changes in breathing (shallow, shorter, harder)
3. Changes in emotion (introversion, anxiety, depression)
4. Changes in awareness (narrowing, less related to people & environment)

After each feedback, ask: “Did you intend to make that change?”

Students universally answer: “NO, I did not.” This realisation underlines Alexander’s discovery of the head/spinal axial relationship calibrates other systems (e.g. respiratory, cardiovascular, emotional, spacial, awareness etc.).

Before introducing the next steps in the process, you must introduce the concept of “thinking-in-activity”. This is crucial for their ‘Alexander thinking” practice to succeed…

 

Thinking-in-Activity - Powered by Jugging Three Elements

 “… and anyone who carries it out faithfully while trying to gain an end will find that he is acquiring a new experience in what he calls “thinking”.”[25]

Most of us tend to think about one thing, and then go on to think about another thing with a tenuous connecting link. I have discovered this to be a fundamental performance limitation, especially when utilising ‘Alexander thinking’ to optimise your coordination. For decades I kept forgetting about this. You can prattle on all you like, but understanding does not equal realisation.

I now headline this aspect of ‘Alexander thinking’ and strongly suggest you do so. I tell participants that they will need to visualise three linked consequential movements. While people can comfortably manage three when asked - they need to be asked because their habit is not to think this way. Then they need to be reminded that they were asked, and then asked if they did what was reminded?

They will mostly answer “No” - so never give up communicating this.

Alexander’s solution to this conundrum was constructing a series of linked sentences to repeat over and over. This approach to ‘Alexander thinking’ works when you have Alexandrian touch to instil kinaesthetic meaning into those words. Now you are going to replace that touch with THREE simple, accurate and clear movement images, all linked together.

Your three movement images can - should - differ from person to person, as no two behaviours are the same. Bespoke Alexander still lives on. However, for group work you need to devise three movement images that consistently allow PSS function - they are essentially inhibitory movements[26] in the same way as FM's four directions act as such.

Your constant is not the specific movement images I suggest below, but simply having three contiguously consequential movement images to explore with your group. What I recommend next is a place to start…

Step Five: Arm movements “Back & Down”

The arms join the axial skeleton at the sterno-clavicular joint, i.e. where your collarbone (clavicle) joins your sternum, just below the neck at the front. You can move your entire arm around this joint either up/down (elevation/depression) and forward/back (protraction/retraction).[27]

The ‘classic misuse’ of the arm is to pivot it back and down around this joint. How many dance, singing and yoga teachers harmfully advise students to keep their shoulders down? Also, some Alexander teachers seem to have a mini-obsession with ‘widening across the upper arms’. Whenever I observe teachers doing that, I see them moving their arms back (retraction) from the sterno-clavicular joint. I don’t advise it.

Start your group walking again, remind them about the head movement at the AO joint, and then ask them to take both arms back from this joint and see what happens? Or take both arms down from this joint and see what happens? Now combine both, all while continuing walking. Again, usually a collective groan emerges from the group as they move their arms both back and down.

Step Six: Arm Movements “Forward & Up”

As they continue walking - still with arms pivoted back and down - ask them to move the whole arm around the sterno-clavicular joint in a forward and up direction to restore the arms to their original location, plus some. Delicately.

I enjoy watching students play with their arms going forward and up around the sterno-clavicular joint along with their head/spine movement - each movement gives the other the meat they both feed upon. However, the line between inhibitory PSS-allowing movements and VMS-interfering movements is your cutting-edge communication challenge!

Step Seven: Rehearsing Torso Movements Over the Hip Joints 

Time to rehearse the third set of binary movement choices with your group.

The hip joints of the legs have three ranges of movement: flexion/extension, adduction/abduction and medial/lateral rotation. However, your leg’s dominant hip joint action in walking is flexion/extension, so focus on that initially.

When your feet remain on the floor, flexion over the hip joint involves your whole torso moving forward as though about to bend forward - which would send your pelvis backwards in space if you did start to bend. However, extension over the hip joints involves moving in the opposite way - your torso leaning back while your pelvis moves forwards through space as both feet remain on the floor.

As stated previously, the challenge is that your movement images are being indirectly communicated to PSS via body schema/image, and not becoming a new set of VMS interferences via higher area cortical activity. Remarkably, few people trust that just thinking about these movement images will have any effect - they want to keep adding something extra. This is why you must keep them walking as you communicate the new movement imagery. They are much less able to “add” to walking if they are already walking! Because of this, their movement imagery takes the pathway to body schema/image and has the desired influence on PSS which they subsequently experience as they continue walking.

This balancing act is your art of teaching.

Step Eight: Torso Extended over the Hip Joints

Start with the second of these movements - ask the group to begin walking by extending the torso over the hip joints so that it bends back, which will send the pelvis forward to initiate walking. This is a “familiar” way of walking for many people.

You are now introducing the third “thinking-in-activity” consequential movement image - remind them to continue the movement images of the forward and up movements at the AO and arm joints as they launch themselves into walking by extending at the hip joint.

Hopefully, this won’t work out well. If you insert some feedback time, ask them how well they could continue with the first two movement images as they introduced the third and final movement image of extending the torso over the hips? You will likely get some wonderful, enlightening replies!

Step Nine: Torso Flexed over the Hip Joints

Finally, you can put the three elements together: AO forward and up as the arms go forward and up, as there is a slight forward flexion of the entire torso over the hip joints as you walk.

Some teachers may wonder where is the spine in all this? Good question. Long story short: as soon as you introduce the whole torso moving in a slightly flexed way over the hip joint, the spine - indeed the whole torso - is now in the consciousness of the student. It works.

The aim is simplicity - three elements are already a lot. Adding more complications at this early stage of learning is counterproductive; that is my observation.

Step Ten: Playtime for Alexander

Your subsequent explorations may resemble an experimental étude or an improvisational dance: using all three movement image elements, ask them to try different things. For example, while they continue walking, you can vary from changing one element from forward and up to back and down while still asking for the other two elements to move towards ease. Or you can expand into new activities - greeting each other, passing around an object, picking up a chair - all while practising their new ‘Alexander thinking’ as they do those things.

Final Thoughts

I often communicate with my hands, but only when my student understands their job. And their job is to think in an Alexander way. I have struggled for decades to know how to explain that to them!

My current way of explaining it is based on these insights:

1. Alexander discovered a Postural Support System hiding in our unconscious Self;
2. PSS responds best to clear, accurate consequential movement images;
3. Images of mass moving in binary directions around crucial joints are effective;
4. Crucial joints are where head, arms & legs functionally connect to the spine.

These days I am exploring three crucial, consequential joints in the spine - the hypermobile joints - so maybe next Congress I’ll have an update on that.

At least for now, I have a way of training my students to ‘think Alexander’ through cascading movement images rather than words, while the mystery of magical results has a logical explanation. It’s nowhere near fully developed, and any feedback, criticisms and suggestions that my article prompts are welcomed! Contact details are below.

 ***

ENDNOTES 

[1] I do not think of my Self as a teacher of the Alexander Technique - because I don’t know what that is. I am confident understanding what Alexander discovered. Therefore, I see my role as communicating this discovery to others. Hence I coined the name “Alexscovery teacher” to describe my personal role as a communicator of FM's stupendous discovery.

[2] Alexander, F.M. (1946 [1932]). The Use of the Self. pp. 1~25. Integral Press: Kent.

[3] Technically - if we consider arms and legs analogous - the equivalent of the sternoclavicular joint in the leg would be the sacroiliac joint, not the hip joint. However, we discount the sacroiliac joint as it does not have any significant range of movement, thus rendering the pelvis more a part of the spine than a part of the leg. For functional purposes, the leg joins the torso at the hip joint, which in the arm is the equivalent of the glenohumeral joint. However, if you are going to include the pelvis as a functional part of the leg - and there are times you must definitely think that way - then the joints to consider are the lumbar spinal joints.

[4] I wrote two previous Congress papers, the first for the 7th Congress at Oxford in 2004 and the second for the 8th Congress at Engelburg in 2008:

Chance, Jeremy. (2004) “A Tale of Two Paradigms”. In The Congress Papers: 7th International Congress of the FM Alexander Technique. STAT Books: London; and Chance, Jeremy. (2008) “Teaching Technology”. In From Generation to Generation: The Congress Papers - 8th International Congress of the FM Alexander Technique,  Lugano 2008, pp. 93~106. STAT Books: London.

[5] Alexander, F.M. (1946 [1932]). The Use of the Self. p.19. Integral Press: Kent.

[6] Movement at the little finger is not a “consequential movement” as there little likelihood that it will have a cascading effect on other joints. However, flexion/extension of your head around the AO Joint can have a cascading effect all the way down the spine. then through into the joints of the limbs - this is a “consequential movement”.

[7] Edward Maisel - in his extended Introduction to “Ressurection of the Body” - claims that the two Alexander brothers in Australia ended up shouting at their students. For a riveting account of the development of Alexander’s work, read Ed’s Introduction. See Bibliography.

[8] I believe the use of touch accelerates a person’s ability to cognitively grasp the skills required to optimise their coordination while in activity. However, I do not want to communicate through touch until my student is able to grasp the nature of their cognitive responsibility. As a result of this necessity - I am compelled to find a way for my students to self-create an experience that immediately demonstrates the efficacy of Alexander's discovery, therefore confidently understand their own responsibilities.

[9]  Chance, J., (2013 [1998]) Principles of the Alexander Technique. ‘The Anatomy of Moving’ pp.163-193. Singing Dragon: London.

[10] The brain is unique in that it is not represented by our proprioceptive system - we have no sensory nerve endings within the grey-and-white matter of our brain. Of course, hair follicles do have sensory nerve endings, but the large space between our head of hair and the beginning of our face is sensorily blank. I suspect this is why emojis are illustrated this way - because people are sensorily flat at the top!

[11] [Please add the relevant citation from this book!!]

[12] Chance, J., (2013 [1998]) Principles of the Alexander Technique. ‘The Anatomy of Moving’ pp. 57-68. Singing Dragon: London.

[13] The arms are not so clear in FM's directions - but “widening” is generally considered to include a reference to how the arms and “back” interact together.

[14] There is another category of directions that I use - “emotional” directions. It is too ambitious to incorporate that concept into this essay, but I do believe these can be powerful, effective and systemic in their influence on optimising postural coordination. The simple question that led me to explore this idea was: “Why does my student pull down in the first place?” There is a whole other thing I do around that.

[15] This model is presented in the revealing online webinars about the science of the Alexander Technique with Tim Cacciatore and Patrick Johnson. Highly recommended. They also posit “Balance” as a third required system for motor learning and control: https://webinars.alexandertechniquescience.com/

Consulted 20 November 2022.

[16] Postural integrity can be loosely defined as the need to maintain “uprightness” while we do what we do - a constant but adaptable muscle tone that opposes gravity and resists fatigue so it can continue keeping you appropriately configured to do what you do.

[17] Although this saying does not appear in any publication attributed to Alexander, it has filtered down from recollections of his teachers, chief among them Margaret Goldie and Walter Carrington. Jean Fischer has published a well-documented historical record on the Mouritz website at this link: https://mouritz.org/companion/article/the-right-thing-does-itself Consulted 20 November 2022.

[18] That Alexander understood this is captured in one of his teaching aphorisms: “When an investigation comes to be made, it will be found that every single thing we are doing in the Work is exactly what is being done in Nature where the conditions are right, the difference being that we are learning to do it consciously.” Maisel, Edward (ed.) Alexander, F. Matthias (1978) The Resurrection of the Body: The Writings of F. Matthias Alexander. ‘Teaching  Aphorisms’ University Books: New York.

[19] Cacciatore, T W. & Johnson & P. M., Cohen, R. G., (2020) ‘Potential Mechanisms of the Alexander Technique: Toward a Comprehensive Neurophysiological Model’ Anderson, D. I. (Ed) In Kinesiology Review Volume 9 Issue 3 pp.119-213. Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL USA. You can read the paper on their website: https://www.alexandertechniquescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Cacciatore2020ATmodelKinesiologyReview.pdf Consulted 20 November 2022.

[20] Ibid. 

[21] The Body Has a Mind of Its Own: How Body Maps in Your Brain Help You Do (Almost) Everything Better Paperback – see Bibliography.

by Sandra Blakeslee  (Author), Matthew Blakeslee (Author)

[22] Various Authors, (2021) Body Schema and Body Image: New Directions  (Ed) Yochai Ataria, Y, Tanaka, S & Gallagher, S. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

[23] Of course “Body Mapping” has been spreading as a powerful teaching tool amongst Alexscovery teachers for several decades now - it is hardly new. I was first indoctrinated in this approach by Don Burton in 1976. One of the modules of learning in BodyChance, my training school in Japan, is BodyThinking. I have been evolving and continuing to teach this approach to my trainees since 1999.

[24] I am aware that while I am presenting movement at the AO joint, of course, there are movements at the atlantoaxial joint and all 36 joints of the cervical spine just for starters! Keeping the initial focus on head movement around the AO area builds the imagery of the surprising height of the spine - an implicit training goal to encourage an accurate visual map of the spine. Information about spinal movements can be introduced in later stages of training.

[25] Alexander, F.M. (1946 [1932]). The Use of the Self. p. 23. Integral Press: Kent.

[26] By “inhibitory movements” I am borrowing from the definition of Marjorie Barstow, which I noted in one of her workshops: “Inhibition is the activity by which the old habit can not take place.” Activity is another name for movement images. Alexander's four directions are also “inhibitory movements”. As Marj once pointed out in another workshop: “If I am moving my head forward and up, haven’t I already inhibited it going back and down?”.

[27] Technically you have three ranges of movement at the sterno-clavicular joint - however, axial rotation (anteriorly/posteriorly) is a passive movement that results when moving through the other two ranges. Therefore, I only introduce beginners to two ranges of movement. In my enthusiasm at the Congress, I discounted axial rotation altogether. Apologies to those I misled or confused and thanks to the brave teacher who refused to go along with me! (I forgot who) 

BIOGRAPHY

Jeremy Chance has been studying Alexander’s discoveries since 1969. His book Principles of the Alexander Technique has been published and translated into 7 languages. Jeremy originally trained in London during the 1970s and continued his studies with Marjorie Barstow in the 1980s. From 1985 to 2002 he was the Publisher & Editor of DIRECTION, a Journal on the Alexander Technique. He was a founding member of AUSTAT in Australia and is currently a member of no Alexander organisations or societies. In 2004 he started publishing a blog and later started a “Daily” email - now with over a million words in 1,200+ entries that can be searched on his website below. In 2008 Jeremy founded what was to become ATSuccess and went on to coach hundreds of trainees and teachers on how to communicate and attract students to the work. In 1999 Jeremy married and started raising a family of two daughters in Japan while founding and developing BodyChance - an Alexander Training School - into the largest school in the world. Today, he continues training teachers in Japan and running ATSuccess. 

CONTACT

1. Email: [email protected]
2. Website: www.atsuccess.com/blog