I cried the day my brother died.
I had the rare privilege of having my "Alexander hands" on him as he took his last breath. I felt the energy leave his body. He had had a cardiac arrest 5 days previously which he had survived - physically - but which had catastrophically damaged his brain due to oxygen starvation. Although he was unconscious for the whole 5 days, his body was not limp.
I realised that the energy which held his body together in that hospital bed was not just blood pressure. It was more than Tensegrity. It was that "thing" that we are constantly trying to direct "up".
"Upness", if I can call it that, is the lightness that we feel when we have had an Alexander lesson. It's that sense of being tall and free: no sense of being pulled-down. It's good. Much as we might wish to, we can't actually "do" anything to bring about upness. It's a reflex that's built into our bodies that is always trying to counter the forces of gravity that pull us down. To experience it, we just have to get out of its way (i.e. inhibit the tension that blocks it) and give it direction.
Think of it like a hose pipe lying on the lawn which you want to use to water the plants in the borders. Left to it's own devices, it will thrash around under the water pressure and the flow of water will go almost anywhere except on the flowers as intended. You pick up the hose to stop it thrashing and you direct it towards the flower beds. You are inhibiting the hose's tendency to go in the wrong direction and you are directing it to where you want it to go. You are not trying to make the water flow. It's doing that on its own.
In a lesson - and in your day-to-day life - you should not try to "create" upness. When you are standing, say while waiting for a train or a bus or to get served in a shop, feel your feet and your heels on the floor and allow the floor to push up through your bones until it pops out of the top of your head. If the upness does not seem to be flowing, it's not because it's not there: you just need to release the unnecessary tensions that are impeding it.
You can direct the flow upwards, beginning by freeing your neck and allowing your head to go forward and up. This freedom of the head and neck lets your back lengthen and widen, widening across the upper parts of your arms. You release your knee caps and allow you knees to go forward and away - towards your second toes. Keep repeating these directions to yourself - not necessarily by verbalising them. At the end of each cycle of directions, just check that you are not "doing" anything to make the directions work. Remember to get out of the way to allow the upness to flow.
Don't under any circumstances, beat yourself up if it takes time to master this art of non-doing. The more you practise the better you will understand what is required for you NOT to do!
Oh, and which way is "up"? It's the direction from the bottom of your spine to the top of your head. It's vertical when you are standing and horizontal when you lie down. The flow is always in this direction whatever you are doing.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
What are the "AT Basics"?
I've been pondering this question for a number of years and I now find myself in a position where I must decide which aspects of AT that I should teach to a beginner.
Call me "old fashioned" if you like, but I believe that, as a provider of a training service, I have a duty of care towards my pupils to ensure that they have at least been introduced to the basics within the first 10 weeks albeit that this might be pushing them along at a relatively fast rate. Only after I have covered the core principles will I slow down and deal with individual aspects in more detail.
A ten-week course currently costs £300 and in this "credit crunch" world, people want to get value for money in the services they buy. Imagine their reaction if after completing a short course, they compare notes with another AT pupil and discover that there are some key things that have not been taught. But what are "the basics" of AT? Here is my attempt at a list. It's not supposed to be exhaustive and it's in no particular order.
That's a lot of ground to cover in just 10 weeks but my question is this: which, if any of these things could you leave-out in a short course?
Given that most pupils won't actually tell you how many lessons they are going to take, in what order should these principles be taught?
I fully accept the principle that no two people are the same and therefore a prescriptive system can never be defined that would cover all pupils' needs. We should always stick to principle and deal with the body as a whole and not focus on individual misuses or undue tensions. However, it's my view that customisation of the teaching curriculum to address the pupil's individual needs should only be considered when the basics have been covered.
As usual, I would welcome comments, especially from teachers but also from pupils who have a view on this.
Call me "old fashioned" if you like, but I believe that, as a provider of a training service, I have a duty of care towards my pupils to ensure that they have at least been introduced to the basics within the first 10 weeks albeit that this might be pushing them along at a relatively fast rate. Only after I have covered the core principles will I slow down and deal with individual aspects in more detail.
A ten-week course currently costs £300 and in this "credit crunch" world, people want to get value for money in the services they buy. Imagine their reaction if after completing a short course, they compare notes with another AT pupil and discover that there are some key things that have not been taught. But what are "the basics" of AT? Here is my attempt at a list. It's not supposed to be exhaustive and it's in no particular order.
- An overview of the Alexander Technique including a summary of FM Alexander's life, work and discoveries.
- How to do the daily practice of lying in semi-supine
- Standing and sitting in a chair: the role of the postural mechanism of the body and how habit interferes with it
- Inhibition: saying "no" (to habit) in response to stimuli
- Direction: the "mantra" of allowing the neck to be free so that the head can go forward and up and the back can lengthen and widen, widening across the upper part of the arms and the knees can go forward and away.
- The role of the ilio-psoas muscles in influencing core tensions
- Whispered Ah
- Positions of mechanical advantage with "hands on the back of the chair" as an example
- Using the wall to inform the process of releasing the knees into bending - a precursor to walking
- Walking
- Stooping, crawling and lunging
- Going up on to the toes
- The neural control mechanisms of the body: spirals
That's a lot of ground to cover in just 10 weeks but my question is this: which, if any of these things could you leave-out in a short course?
Given that most pupils won't actually tell you how many lessons they are going to take, in what order should these principles be taught?
I fully accept the principle that no two people are the same and therefore a prescriptive system can never be defined that would cover all pupils' needs. We should always stick to principle and deal with the body as a whole and not focus on individual misuses or undue tensions. However, it's my view that customisation of the teaching curriculum to address the pupil's individual needs should only be considered when the basics have been covered.
As usual, I would welcome comments, especially from teachers but also from pupils who have a view on this.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
It's time to protect our market
I've been thinking for a long time about how I can do justice to the subject of marketing AT services. My views on this subject have not changed since I first began my teacher-training in 2002.
The publication of the ATEAM study in August 2008 heralded a new era in the AT profession. At last we can put to bed the futile argument about whether AT is a therapy or a form of education. When used to help people with bad backs, it's educational therapy. The study showed that AT was more effective than other forms of remedial treatment because the educational element of AT extended the period of its effectiveness as a therapy for chronic lower back pain.
If we continue with the line that AT is purely education then we cut ourselves off from this potentially lucrative market of new pupils seeking treatment for their backs. Ask a random sample of the population why someone might book AT sessions and the vast majority will say something about improving their posture or about back problems. Ask them where they might expect to see AT advertised on the Net and they will invariably mention the words alternative and therapy. They might even use the words medical or treatment but I'm willing to bet that virtually none of them will say anything about education.
If we really insist on disabusing our pupils of the notion that AT is therapy, there is a time and a place to do it - and that's in a lesson, once the new pupil has committed, and absolutely NOT at the time where we are prospecting for new pupils.
So what's my point about protecting our markets I hear you say.
We are entering the mother of all recessions since the great depression of the 1930's. Thousands of people are losing their jobs every week and those who are still employed are getting anxious about their own particular job security. Whether or not there is any need for it, people are beginning to tighten their belts and economise, preparing for the possibility of bad times to come.
Those who may have been considering taking-up Alexander lessons or even training to be AT teachers will be having second thoughts. It's going to be tough for existing AT practitioners and for teacher training schools.
So when I read in the recent newsletter that new teacher training schools (heads of training) had been applied-for, I immediately wrote off an email to STAT to suggest that they refused permission - at least in the UK.
We are a private society of members who are each invited to join STAT, when we apply for training at STAT-approved schools. There is no automatic right to membership and, as a private society, we have the absolute right to refuse membership to anyone for any reason provided such refusal is within the remit of our constitution and represents the will of the membership.
I think the time has come for STAT to protect existing practitioners and established training schools from an over-supply of qualified teachers. In the current economic climate, I would be furious if STAT were to grant an application for a new teacher training school in my geographical locality. Business is hard to find and the prospect of a local school churning-out newly qualified teachers into an already saturated market would fill me with dismay.
Nowithstanding the possible new demand that may be stimulated in the medical sector by the ATEAM study, we should not continue to undermine our existing, limited markets by opening new AT teacher training schools.
As it happens, the current proposals for teacher training schools don't particularly affect my geographical area, so I'm therefore arguing my point from common sense rather that from a NIMBY attitude. Unlike many struggling AT teachers, I have my own alternative form of income that means I'm not dependent on an income from teaching so again, I'm not being self-serving by arguing for more regulation of the market.
You only need to look at what has happened to the acting profession to see the effect of over-supply. Most actors spend more time out of work than in-work because there are probably 10 actors (or more?) available for every one job. It's a classic example of an unregulated market. There is no framework to enable the supply of new actors to be stemmed, unlike in AT, where accreditation by a recognised professional organisation is seen by our customers as an important requirement, if not exactly a prerequisite.
We know from recent salary surveys of AT teachers that there is a crisis amongst those who are teaching AT as their primary source of income. Compare today's typical lesson fee of £30 to the 4 guineas charged by FM Alexander 90 years ago. His fee corresponded to around £200 by modern standards! It's my understanding that he expressed concerns about the dilution of the market by newly qualified teachers: fears which evidently were well-founded.
I therefore intend to propose a motion for debate at the next STAT AGM, providing I can find a seconder. At the moment, I'm thinking of something on the lines of the following:
"The membership feels that too many teachers are being trained at present and would like Council to explore a moratorium on new schools in the UK for 5 years. After this time, the granting of new heads of training will be strictly controlled having regard for the demand for AT lessons in the geographical location relative to existing supply in that location and to the will of the membership."
If you have a view on this or would like to second such a motion, please Send me an email or comment on this blog.
The publication of the ATEAM study in August 2008 heralded a new era in the AT profession. At last we can put to bed the futile argument about whether AT is a therapy or a form of education. When used to help people with bad backs, it's educational therapy. The study showed that AT was more effective than other forms of remedial treatment because the educational element of AT extended the period of its effectiveness as a therapy for chronic lower back pain.
If we continue with the line that AT is purely education then we cut ourselves off from this potentially lucrative market of new pupils seeking treatment for their backs. Ask a random sample of the population why someone might book AT sessions and the vast majority will say something about improving their posture or about back problems. Ask them where they might expect to see AT advertised on the Net and they will invariably mention the words alternative and therapy. They might even use the words medical or treatment but I'm willing to bet that virtually none of them will say anything about education.
If we really insist on disabusing our pupils of the notion that AT is therapy, there is a time and a place to do it - and that's in a lesson, once the new pupil has committed, and absolutely NOT at the time where we are prospecting for new pupils.
So what's my point about protecting our markets I hear you say.
We are entering the mother of all recessions since the great depression of the 1930's. Thousands of people are losing their jobs every week and those who are still employed are getting anxious about their own particular job security. Whether or not there is any need for it, people are beginning to tighten their belts and economise, preparing for the possibility of bad times to come.
Those who may have been considering taking-up Alexander lessons or even training to be AT teachers will be having second thoughts. It's going to be tough for existing AT practitioners and for teacher training schools.
So when I read in the recent newsletter that new teacher training schools (heads of training) had been applied-for, I immediately wrote off an email to STAT to suggest that they refused permission - at least in the UK.
We are a private society of members who are each invited to join STAT, when we apply for training at STAT-approved schools. There is no automatic right to membership and, as a private society, we have the absolute right to refuse membership to anyone for any reason provided such refusal is within the remit of our constitution and represents the will of the membership.
I think the time has come for STAT to protect existing practitioners and established training schools from an over-supply of qualified teachers. In the current economic climate, I would be furious if STAT were to grant an application for a new teacher training school in my geographical locality. Business is hard to find and the prospect of a local school churning-out newly qualified teachers into an already saturated market would fill me with dismay.
Nowithstanding the possible new demand that may be stimulated in the medical sector by the ATEAM study, we should not continue to undermine our existing, limited markets by opening new AT teacher training schools.
As it happens, the current proposals for teacher training schools don't particularly affect my geographical area, so I'm therefore arguing my point from common sense rather that from a NIMBY attitude. Unlike many struggling AT teachers, I have my own alternative form of income that means I'm not dependent on an income from teaching so again, I'm not being self-serving by arguing for more regulation of the market.
You only need to look at what has happened to the acting profession to see the effect of over-supply. Most actors spend more time out of work than in-work because there are probably 10 actors (or more?) available for every one job. It's a classic example of an unregulated market. There is no framework to enable the supply of new actors to be stemmed, unlike in AT, where accreditation by a recognised professional organisation is seen by our customers as an important requirement, if not exactly a prerequisite.
We know from recent salary surveys of AT teachers that there is a crisis amongst those who are teaching AT as their primary source of income. Compare today's typical lesson fee of £30 to the 4 guineas charged by FM Alexander 90 years ago. His fee corresponded to around £200 by modern standards! It's my understanding that he expressed concerns about the dilution of the market by newly qualified teachers: fears which evidently were well-founded.
I therefore intend to propose a motion for debate at the next STAT AGM, providing I can find a seconder. At the moment, I'm thinking of something on the lines of the following:
"The membership feels that too many teachers are being trained at present and would like Council to explore a moratorium on new schools in the UK for 5 years. After this time, the granting of new heads of training will be strictly controlled having regard for the demand for AT lessons in the geographical location relative to existing supply in that location and to the will of the membership."
If you have a view on this or would like to second such a motion, please Send me an email or comment on this blog.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
The ATEAM Study
Last week, the British Medical Journal published the long-awaited results of an NHS-funded study into the effectiveness of AT in helping people with chronic and recurring lower back pain. The results showed that 24 AT lessons or 6 AT lessons followed by a program of prescribed exercise was more effective in the longer term in relieving the symptoms than massage or exercise alone.
I'm pleasantly surprised at the effect that the publicity has had on the number of enquiries I have received. Within one week of the results being broadcast on the BBC and appearing in the national press, I had signed-up six new pipils and had several other serious enquiries.
Several thoughts spring to mind about how this new understanding of AT might evolve.
One of my closest friends is an NHS GP. He has always ribbed me about AT being "a degree in advanced navel-gazing" and my response to that is not printable! However, now that AT has been awarded some legitimacy as a therapy, he says that he could now recommend AT to patients with chronic back pain. However, he could only do so on the same basis as he would recommend osteopathy - i.e. he could suggest that a patient might try it but he can't pay for the patient's lessons.
I wonder if health insurers will now place AT in the same category as the other approved "alternative therapies". If so, how many lessons might they be prepared to pay for. My guess would be six (typically at a cost of £180 total) and not the 24 (£720) that the study seemed to be justifying. It seems to me that the ATEAM study showed a statistically significant outcome at 12 months for those who had received 24 lessons over those that had received 6 lessons plus prescribed exercise but that the difference between the two may not have been clinically significant from a cost-benefit point of view. I understand that a post trial cost-benefit analysis is to be undertaken and if so, I will be very interested to see the results.
As for AT teachers, I can foresee a number of reactions.
After getting over the initial euphoria of this new market of pupils, they will have to get used to a new kind of pupil: someone who comes seeking a specific therapeutic outcome. This idea goes somewhat against the grain of what AT is about. We are not there to "treat" a specific problem. Rather, we apply a tested and trusted formula developed by FM Alexander for dealing with the whole person. In due course, with an improved use of the whole body, the specific symptoms (back pain in this case) will subside.
It will become more important for teachers to resist the tendency of pupils to want to control the agenda in a lesson. Yes, they may think they have paid for the teacher to "treat" their back pain but actually they have paid to be taught how to prevent undue tensions in their bodies including their chronic back pain. They are there to learn how to treat themselves.
I have no doubt that the old guard conservative teachers will see this development as a step in the wrong direction. It's not. There has always been an argument put forward that AT is education and not therapy. This is despite the numerous references that Alexander made in his writing of people who had been sent to him because of this or that ailment! I've never really understood why some teachers are so hung-up about promoting AT as a therapy. It's "educational therapy" - by teaching pupils to undo their bad habits, a therapeutic outcome is achieved - even if that wasn't the reason why they originally came for lessons.
The important thing to understand is that we are now on the threshold of a new era where AT will finally take its rightful place as a respected healing technique. Those who achieve a positive outcome for their chronic conditions will also experience the fringe benefits in terms of a greater sense of well-being.
There are also dangers. As money becomes available for AT therapy there will be those who want to cash-in by posing as AT teachers when, in fact they have only ever read a couple of books on the subject and possibly attended a few group sessions. Only yesterday, I had to fire-off a few emails to a distance-learning provider and their accreditors for offering a certificate in AT by distance learning. They had might as well print their certicicate on a piece of bog paper!
I'm pleasantly surprised at the effect that the publicity has had on the number of enquiries I have received. Within one week of the results being broadcast on the BBC and appearing in the national press, I had signed-up six new pipils and had several other serious enquiries.
Several thoughts spring to mind about how this new understanding of AT might evolve.
One of my closest friends is an NHS GP. He has always ribbed me about AT being "a degree in advanced navel-gazing" and my response to that is not printable! However, now that AT has been awarded some legitimacy as a therapy, he says that he could now recommend AT to patients with chronic back pain. However, he could only do so on the same basis as he would recommend osteopathy - i.e. he could suggest that a patient might try it but he can't pay for the patient's lessons.
I wonder if health insurers will now place AT in the same category as the other approved "alternative therapies". If so, how many lessons might they be prepared to pay for. My guess would be six (typically at a cost of £180 total) and not the 24 (£720) that the study seemed to be justifying. It seems to me that the ATEAM study showed a statistically significant outcome at 12 months for those who had received 24 lessons over those that had received 6 lessons plus prescribed exercise but that the difference between the two may not have been clinically significant from a cost-benefit point of view. I understand that a post trial cost-benefit analysis is to be undertaken and if so, I will be very interested to see the results.
As for AT teachers, I can foresee a number of reactions.
After getting over the initial euphoria of this new market of pupils, they will have to get used to a new kind of pupil: someone who comes seeking a specific therapeutic outcome. This idea goes somewhat against the grain of what AT is about. We are not there to "treat" a specific problem. Rather, we apply a tested and trusted formula developed by FM Alexander for dealing with the whole person. In due course, with an improved use of the whole body, the specific symptoms (back pain in this case) will subside.
It will become more important for teachers to resist the tendency of pupils to want to control the agenda in a lesson. Yes, they may think they have paid for the teacher to "treat" their back pain but actually they have paid to be taught how to prevent undue tensions in their bodies including their chronic back pain. They are there to learn how to treat themselves.
I have no doubt that the old guard conservative teachers will see this development as a step in the wrong direction. It's not. There has always been an argument put forward that AT is education and not therapy. This is despite the numerous references that Alexander made in his writing of people who had been sent to him because of this or that ailment! I've never really understood why some teachers are so hung-up about promoting AT as a therapy. It's "educational therapy" - by teaching pupils to undo their bad habits, a therapeutic outcome is achieved - even if that wasn't the reason why they originally came for lessons.
The important thing to understand is that we are now on the threshold of a new era where AT will finally take its rightful place as a respected healing technique. Those who achieve a positive outcome for their chronic conditions will also experience the fringe benefits in terms of a greater sense of well-being.
There are also dangers. As money becomes available for AT therapy there will be those who want to cash-in by posing as AT teachers when, in fact they have only ever read a couple of books on the subject and possibly attended a few group sessions. Only yesterday, I had to fire-off a few emails to a distance-learning provider and their accreditors for offering a certificate in AT by distance learning. They had might as well print their certicicate on a piece of bog paper!
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Demystifying AT
Alexander's philosophy of "the Self" led me to believe that developing a more sophisticated use of my physical Self through his technique would lead to a deeper psychological and spiritual awareness. I was therefore hoping for great things from AT.
After 13 years of personal AT lessons, I enrolled on a three-year full-time teacher training course. I wasn't just looking to achieve physical improvements.
There's no doubt that, on the physical level, I changed significantly. It wasn't exactly a smooth transition, however. I went through periods of aches and pains, mainly brought about by trying to "do". There were times when I really thought I understood the AT process only to discover later that I had it all wrong. This mirrors the experience that Alexander had when he was trying to understand his own use.
After 13 years of personal AT lessons, I enrolled on a three-year full-time teacher training course. I wasn't just looking to achieve physical improvements.
There's no doubt that, on the physical level, I changed significantly. It wasn't exactly a smooth transition, however. I went through periods of aches and pains, mainly brought about by trying to "do". There were times when I really thought I understood the AT process only to discover later that I had it all wrong. This mirrors the experience that Alexander had when he was trying to understand his own use.
On a psychological level, the change in poise, posture and attitude that AT brings about affects people's perceptions of you and that, in turn, changes the way you perceive your own life and increases your self esteem and happiness. I never had any major issues with self-confidence but my former stress levels caused me to appear a bit too assertive and overbearing. Now, I think people perceive a happier, more contented Jeff and instead, they tend to see me as amusingly eccentric. I'm pleased about that. Of course, I'm still the same person inside! AT can't change your personality: only your behaviour.
One of my hobbies for the last 19 years has been studying esoteric and existential philosophy: more specifically, the nature of human consciousness. This led me to a new scientific theory of consciousness and as a consequence I have spent time getting to know some of the religious views about it . Not wishing to subscribe to any of the major religions or (in the case of Buddhism) philospohies, I have always looked within my own being for a deeper understanding of mind. This was a factor in making AT look like a good thing for me to do.
The late Ray Evans, director of the Alexander Re-Education Centre training course had a profound spiritual dimension (connected to his mastery of Yoga and his Christian faith, I think). I was hoping that some of this might rub-off on me as a result of AT. During my private lessons with Ray, I used to ask him to tell me about the spiritual benefits of AT. The most I could get out of him was a knowing smile and a platitude such as "you will have to discover that for yourself, Jeff".
Alexander came from a humble though strongly Christian family. I've often wondered if his avoidance of spiritual matters in relation to his work was driven by a need to avert conflict with the (then) powerful forces of the Christian Church, some of whose most influential leaders he had befriended through his work. Walter Carrington, who effectively took over from Alexander after his dealth in 1955 also came from a religious background. I understand that he chose AT over a career as a Jesuit priest. Only time will tell whether he changed Alexander's message by overlaying his own spiritual beliefs on his teachings.
The conclusion I have come to is that AT has no automatic place in a spiritual or religious context. It requires no act of faith to develop good use, other than to trust the Technique enough to let go of your habits. That's not to say that AT can't help you develop a higher spiritual awareness - if that's what you are seeking - BUT spirituality is absolutely not a prerequisite nor an inevitable outcome of developing good use. To portray AT otherwise would, in my opinion, bring the Technique into disrepute within the professional circles in which we are increasingly moving.
I have become more spiritually attuned over the same period of time that I have been an AT teacher. That's a coincidence.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
The Right Way of Pulling
Last week I went to an AT workshop run by Ron Colyer, director of the Alexander Re-Education Centre. It was part 2 of a duet of classes entitled "Antagonistic Action" (AA).
I was the guinea pig in an exercise to apply AA to the most complex structure in the body: the spine. It involved taking the head of a pupil while she was lying in semi-supine on the table. The intention was to encourage the pupil to lengthen her spine without "pulling" her head with my arms.
I stood in "The Alexander Position" :-) at the head of the table and, guided by Ron's hands, put myself into "monkey" and placed my hands on the pupil's head. My instruction was to widen across the upper part of my arms and "pull" into my elbows whilst maintaining my direction: forward and up. Stimulated to pull down by the others in the class who were all watching for me to get it wrong (well at least that's the way I saw it) I made a complete hash of it and my pupil made no response to my efforts.
Evidently, Ron could see what I had done to myself and, with the skill of a sculptor smoothing and perfecting the final form of his work, guided me forward and up whilst bringing me into my back. "You have to use the right kind of pulling", he said. "Just direct your spine back then direct your spine up - back and up back and up". The resulting diagonal direction gave me a sense of connection to my pupil and, with no prompting from Ron, both she and I simultaneously released and took a breath.
I can't find the words to explain the sensation of what that connection to my pupil felt like but I know that it is real and that the simultenaity of the release that we both experienced was not a coincidence, but a result of that connection.
As I recollect, my first encounter with this phenomonen was on year 3 of my AT training course. I was working with Mike Cross and he was sitting on a chair and I was standing behind, hands on his shoulders. He invited me to send him forward or back, rocking on his sitting bones. It wasn't going well. Mike isn't the sort of person who will make it too easy for you! "What are you thinking?", he sternly interrogated. My response was not worth reporting because, in truth, I was only thinking of trying to get it right.
"Start again, looking after your own use and forget about me", he commanded. I dutifully did as instructed and placed my hands on his shoulders. "Now THINK the directions for me". Feeling a bit put-down by my obvious inability to do as instructed, I decided that under NO circumstances was I going to give Mike the slightest cue to move. I stubbornly waited, waited and waited again to see if he would start the movement himself. Just at the point where I was about to give up, the thought passed through my head "now MOVE back". At that instant Mike rocked back on his sitting bones and then announced "That's better: now you are thinking right".
I've given a LOT of thought as to what might be behind this almost paranormal experience. I'm not sure if I believe in telepathy - although I don't rule it out - but I prefer a more practical explanation. I'm going to label this phenomonen "proprioceptive communication".
Proprioception is often referred-to as the true 6th sense. It is your sense of being. It's knowing where your bodily parts are and what they are doing, without having to look. Without it, you would have to devote so much of your brain's conscious processing capacity to simple tasks such as walking that you would hardly be able to concentrate on anything else. But is it REALLY a sense in the same way as the "five senses" are senses?
I've debated this point with several more erudite people than myself (when it comes to the subject of physiology). One view that I support is that, for proprioception to be a true "sense", it must be capable of creating an awareness of the EXTERNAL world - the world outside your body. Knowing where your limbs are seems to fall into the same catagory as knowing if you feel hot or cold or whether you are hungry or thirsty or not feeling well. I don't think many people would elevate the feeling of hunger to the level of a "sense" in its own right.
So, in order to be a sense, proprioception needs to be able to inform you of what's going-on outside of yourself. That's exactly the experience that I have been describing when teaching AT. The pupil seems to be able to sense the state of being of the teacher and to respond by mimicking the teacher's use. The teacher's hands are communicating with the pupil at the level of proprioception and the pupil is sensing that external stimulus. Proprioception is therefore a sense.
This happens at a subconscious level. In fact I would go as far as to say that, if the teacher-pupil interaction is too consciously directed, then the subtlety of the subconscious connection gets lost.
If you need a precedent for subconscious communication, you need to look no further than the effect of pheramones, operating through the sense of smell. There have been numerous studies of how male and female pheramones affect the behaviour of individuals who don't consciously know that they can smell them. Of course we can communicate with our other senses consciously - our hearing is used to interpret speech, our sight is used to interpret body language or sign-language and communication by touch has a miriad of interpretations. Taste is less easy to see, but we all know expressions like "the way to a man's heart is through his stomach", which is probably an allusion to the sense of taste.
What makes proprioceptive communication different from touch is the level of consciousness at which it operates. Touch is essentially a conscious thing. Perhaps one definition of an Alexander teacher is someone who has learned how to perfect their ability to differentiate the use of their hands from that of simple touch?
Having said that, in ALL human interactions no single sense dominates. We receive messages from everyone that we interface-with using all the information that our 6 senses provide.
Even if this theory about the connection between a pupil and the teacher isn't quite right, there's one thing I'm sure about: soneone who has never experienced this connection first-hand cannot claim to be fully competent at teaching AT. This gives us a real dilemma in trying to define the nature of an AT lesson and I can see why so many STAT members object so strongly to the concept of a defined competence framework for AT.
I was the guinea pig in an exercise to apply AA to the most complex structure in the body: the spine. It involved taking the head of a pupil while she was lying in semi-supine on the table. The intention was to encourage the pupil to lengthen her spine without "pulling" her head with my arms.
I stood in "The Alexander Position" :-) at the head of the table and, guided by Ron's hands, put myself into "monkey" and placed my hands on the pupil's head. My instruction was to widen across the upper part of my arms and "pull" into my elbows whilst maintaining my direction: forward and up. Stimulated to pull down by the others in the class who were all watching for me to get it wrong (well at least that's the way I saw it) I made a complete hash of it and my pupil made no response to my efforts.
Evidently, Ron could see what I had done to myself and, with the skill of a sculptor smoothing and perfecting the final form of his work, guided me forward and up whilst bringing me into my back. "You have to use the right kind of pulling", he said. "Just direct your spine back then direct your spine up - back and up back and up". The resulting diagonal direction gave me a sense of connection to my pupil and, with no prompting from Ron, both she and I simultaneously released and took a breath.
I can't find the words to explain the sensation of what that connection to my pupil felt like but I know that it is real and that the simultenaity of the release that we both experienced was not a coincidence, but a result of that connection.
As I recollect, my first encounter with this phenomonen was on year 3 of my AT training course. I was working with Mike Cross and he was sitting on a chair and I was standing behind, hands on his shoulders. He invited me to send him forward or back, rocking on his sitting bones. It wasn't going well. Mike isn't the sort of person who will make it too easy for you! "What are you thinking?", he sternly interrogated. My response was not worth reporting because, in truth, I was only thinking of trying to get it right.
"Start again, looking after your own use and forget about me", he commanded. I dutifully did as instructed and placed my hands on his shoulders. "Now THINK the directions for me". Feeling a bit put-down by my obvious inability to do as instructed, I decided that under NO circumstances was I going to give Mike the slightest cue to move. I stubbornly waited, waited and waited again to see if he would start the movement himself. Just at the point where I was about to give up, the thought passed through my head "now MOVE back". At that instant Mike rocked back on his sitting bones and then announced "That's better: now you are thinking right".
I've given a LOT of thought as to what might be behind this almost paranormal experience. I'm not sure if I believe in telepathy - although I don't rule it out - but I prefer a more practical explanation. I'm going to label this phenomonen "proprioceptive communication".
Proprioception is often referred-to as the true 6th sense. It is your sense of being. It's knowing where your bodily parts are and what they are doing, without having to look. Without it, you would have to devote so much of your brain's conscious processing capacity to simple tasks such as walking that you would hardly be able to concentrate on anything else. But is it REALLY a sense in the same way as the "five senses" are senses?
I've debated this point with several more erudite people than myself (when it comes to the subject of physiology). One view that I support is that, for proprioception to be a true "sense", it must be capable of creating an awareness of the EXTERNAL world - the world outside your body. Knowing where your limbs are seems to fall into the same catagory as knowing if you feel hot or cold or whether you are hungry or thirsty or not feeling well. I don't think many people would elevate the feeling of hunger to the level of a "sense" in its own right.
So, in order to be a sense, proprioception needs to be able to inform you of what's going-on outside of yourself. That's exactly the experience that I have been describing when teaching AT. The pupil seems to be able to sense the state of being of the teacher and to respond by mimicking the teacher's use. The teacher's hands are communicating with the pupil at the level of proprioception and the pupil is sensing that external stimulus. Proprioception is therefore a sense.
This happens at a subconscious level. In fact I would go as far as to say that, if the teacher-pupil interaction is too consciously directed, then the subtlety of the subconscious connection gets lost.
If you need a precedent for subconscious communication, you need to look no further than the effect of pheramones, operating through the sense of smell. There have been numerous studies of how male and female pheramones affect the behaviour of individuals who don't consciously know that they can smell them. Of course we can communicate with our other senses consciously - our hearing is used to interpret speech, our sight is used to interpret body language or sign-language and communication by touch has a miriad of interpretations. Taste is less easy to see, but we all know expressions like "the way to a man's heart is through his stomach", which is probably an allusion to the sense of taste.
What makes proprioceptive communication different from touch is the level of consciousness at which it operates. Touch is essentially a conscious thing. Perhaps one definition of an Alexander teacher is someone who has learned how to perfect their ability to differentiate the use of their hands from that of simple touch?
Having said that, in ALL human interactions no single sense dominates. We receive messages from everyone that we interface-with using all the information that our 6 senses provide.
Even if this theory about the connection between a pupil and the teacher isn't quite right, there's one thing I'm sure about: soneone who has never experienced this connection first-hand cannot claim to be fully competent at teaching AT. This gives us a real dilemma in trying to define the nature of an AT lesson and I can see why so many STAT members object so strongly to the concept of a defined competence framework for AT.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Changing the habits of a lifetime
Last week, I read an article in the 01 December issue of New Scientist about the subconscious mind. The article described a four-part model of the conscious and subconscious control systems of the mind, developed by Peter Dayan, Nathaniel Daw and Yael Niv of University College London.
It made me reconsider my understanding of subconscious habit that forms part of the AT philosophy.
Dayan's model describes four systems of the mind, each with a different controller.
The pavlovian controller differs from the habitual controller inasmuch as habits are consciously learned and rehearsed until they become second nature.
When we respond to stimuli using conscious control, our resulting behaviour depends on the amount of information we have available on which we can make rational choices. In the case of incomplete information, our episodic controller recommends responses based on our experience of previous, similar situations. In an ideal situation, we focus our goal-directed controller on a well-defined problem and respond to it rationally in order to optimise our choice.
Contemporary experiments in neuroscience are revealing an increasingly important role that the subconscious mind plays in our day-to-day activities. The brain's capacity for conscious processing is a limited resource that needs to be rationed. The subconscious therefore monitors all sensory input - below your awareness - and decides which stimuli are worthy of being assigned to conscious processing.
Once the goal-directed controller has been assigned to a routine task, it aims to consign future responses to similar tasks to subconscious, habitual processing (or at least to the episodic controller) thus freeing itself to perform other tasks.
You can see this in action when we learn a new skill such as typing or driving a car. Eventually, the execution of that skill becomes an unthinking subconscious activity.
So, how does this relate to our classic understanding of the wokings of the body, as described by Mr. Alexander in his books - such as "Constructive Conscious Control of the Individual"? This is the question that I'm still evaluating, but here are my first thoughts.
Alexander spoke at length about the "evil" of subconscious habit and how it leads us to mis-use our body with undue tension. His technique for correcting this requires us to:
It made me reconsider my understanding of subconscious habit that forms part of the AT philosophy.
Dayan's model describes four systems of the mind, each with a different controller.
- the subconscious PAVLOVIAN controller
- the subconscious HABITUAL controller
- the conscious EPISODIC controller
- the conscious GOAL-DIRECTED controler
The pavlovian controller differs from the habitual controller inasmuch as habits are consciously learned and rehearsed until they become second nature.
When we respond to stimuli using conscious control, our resulting behaviour depends on the amount of information we have available on which we can make rational choices. In the case of incomplete information, our episodic controller recommends responses based on our experience of previous, similar situations. In an ideal situation, we focus our goal-directed controller on a well-defined problem and respond to it rationally in order to optimise our choice.
Contemporary experiments in neuroscience are revealing an increasingly important role that the subconscious mind plays in our day-to-day activities. The brain's capacity for conscious processing is a limited resource that needs to be rationed. The subconscious therefore monitors all sensory input - below your awareness - and decides which stimuli are worthy of being assigned to conscious processing.
Once the goal-directed controller has been assigned to a routine task, it aims to consign future responses to similar tasks to subconscious, habitual processing (or at least to the episodic controller) thus freeing itself to perform other tasks.
You can see this in action when we learn a new skill such as typing or driving a car. Eventually, the execution of that skill becomes an unthinking subconscious activity.
So, how does this relate to our classic understanding of the wokings of the body, as described by Mr. Alexander in his books - such as "Constructive Conscious Control of the Individual"? This is the question that I'm still evaluating, but here are my first thoughts.
Alexander spoke at length about the "evil" of subconscious habit and how it leads us to mis-use our body with undue tension. His technique for correcting this requires us to:
- identify wrong subconscious habits (misuse)
- inhibit the impulses that drive them
- substitute different, consciously controlled (directed) means of using the body
- repeat until the new use replaces the old habits
When a new pupil starts to learn AT, they arrive at their first lesson with their own unique pattern of use (or misuse). The teacher invites them to perform a routine task such as sitting in a chair - something which in most people is an unthinking, habitual process. Almost invariably, the teacher will observe that they are performing the task wrongly - for example by shortening in the back of the neck, pulling down at the front or pulling in with the knees and flopping into the chair.
The teacher then asks the pupil to repeat the task but this time, uses her/his hands to help direct the pupil "up" whilst sitting "down". For the pupil, this represents new sensory input that contradicts their habitual controller's understanding of the sitting process. Instantly, the task is reassigned. The episodic controller may switch-in and try to apply a previously learned behaviour to the task. For example, they might sit in the chair as if they were trying to balance a book on their head. A different pattern of use is observed although it bears little relation to the freely released, upwardly directed motion that the teacher had intended.
The teacher then explains the principle of sitting and repeats the exercise using modified hands to direct it. Eventually, the pupil breaks free of the episodic controller and assigns the goal-directed controller to the task. This is where the teacher may explain the "means whereby" (end-gaining) principle. The act of sitting is analysed in detail.
The next few attempts are awkward and unnatural, albeit that the pupil starts to direct upwards, while thinking about their knees ...etc. Too much goal-directed processing actually gets in the way of the act of sitting!
Now comes the part where this newly acquired skill needs to be reassigned as an habitual process. The pupil is instructed to continue to adopt the new method of sitting in their day-to-day life when there is no teacher to direct and correct them. It is ONLY by working on himself that the pupil will be able to learn to trust the new pattern of use enough to allow it to be handled subconsciously.
Of course, this improved way of sitting will be added to the pupil's library of episodic responses and it will start to emerge in his other activities.
As AT lessons progress, the teacher will take the pupil through a variety of other activities - such as walking, climbing stairs, stooping, lifting an object etc. Each new activity will be associated with new thinking and eventually - with the commitment of the pupil - the "thinking in activity" will become part of his non-thinking subconscious control system.
Returning to the starting point where the pupil is directed for the first time to sit in a new way: rarely, instead of directing the processing of the new stimulus to the conscious controllers, a pupil may respond with a reflex reaction. Their "startle reflex" may cause them to stiffen because they preceive that they are about to fall backwards.
This inappropriate triggering of a primitive reflex is an area of study that is about 40 years old. It's not a subject that I claim any expertise in, but is well understood by reflex therapists who have developed techniques to help the sufferer develop a more mature reponse. I think this body of knowledge will eventually become part of the curriculum for trainee AT teachers. Maybe this new model of conscious and subconscious processing will help to define its place in AT practice?
I invite you to comment on this blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
