It has been fashionable over the years to pose the question, “What is the Alexander Technique?” in the hope of providing a definitive answer. It was always clear to me that if it took Alexander four books (and some) to answer the question, I was unlikely to be successful in creating a simple and succinct answer. From time to time there have been competitions and the like in the search of the best answer. Now, from the perspective of the twenty-first century, I suspect that all the simple answers have been used up without anything really satisfactory emerging.
So where do we go from here? Having observed the scene over the years it strikes me that the Technique has undergone a number of changes. Mainly, it has become more diffuse and the number of variations has increased, to the extent that nowadays more appropriate questions would be, “How many Alexander Techniques are there?” and “What does each of them consist of?”.
For example, at one extreme the simple process of stopping to consider how to carry out one’s next action could be considered a use of the Alexander Technique. At another extreme the employment of a particular ostensively definable relationship of head, neck, back and limbs could be the defining feature. And then there are variations on each of these two.
A question then arises as to which variations and combinations of these two fall within the defining features of the Alexander Technique. This is germane to the question of who can call themselves an Alexander Technique Teacher. For example, a particular set of criteria defines who falls within the acceptable limits for STAT.
My experience from attending conferences and giving workshops all over the world has taught me there are a variety of activities which go under the name of the Alexander Technique. This has from time to time posed a problem for me. But the reasons for this have changed over time. At first there was no problem because I was trained in one particular way and had very little exposure to anything else. Difficulty arose when I started to explore further, at conferences and congresses. I realised that the variations were so extreme that I began to wonder how they could all fall under the same umbrella. I resolved the issue for myself by continuing my own development along the lines set down by my initial training but at the same time recognising that others who taught very differently had also received their training from a first generation teacher. I don’t want to go into which training was the genuine article. We could not possibly resolve that issue some fifty plus years later. So I came to accept that there was an Alexander “community” who practised and taught the Technique, but in a variety of different ways.
Were there points in common between these? In a pretty rough way I decided that if individuals were engaged in some way with Patrick Macdonald’s list of distinguishing features (recognition of the force of habit, unreliable sensory appreciation, inhibition, direction and the primary control), that would be enough to make them members of the Alexander Community. This is different from being teachers or being a member of a professional Alexander society. That was my position in 2004 when I co-organised the Oxford Congress.
At the same time I was becoming clearer and clearer about my own development as an Alexander Teacher. Indeed, problems arose when “my way” clashed with someone else’s way. Should I confront or act like a chameleon? Or something in between. Personal development requires some personal assurance. And on what can that be based except persistence, which in turn requires a bit of resilience in the face of negative feedback?!
There are so many dimensions to this psycho-physical technique – one can start with the psycho- and the physical- with variations on each, not to mention the different lenses through which it can be viewed, the internal or first-person lens, the third-person or “objective” lens and so on.
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that there are good teachers (I may not always agree with them!) both inside and outside the Affiliated Societies and that what is important is the possibility of some kind of dialogue between them. Anything less will lead to factionalism.
It is inevitable that there will always be this distinction between the “Alexander Technique” as a generic entity, “brand name” or community and the “Alexander Technique” which is practised and taught by individuals. It has become a broad church.