In the Interview with Walter Carrington by Sean Carey, Walter describes a plethora of events on the training course with F.M. including personal stories, clarification of historical events, and practical lessons- mostly from Alexander himself.
Walter was attracted to the work by the transformations he saw in his mother and friend who had taken lessons from Alexander. There was a common theme of some of the trainees (including Walter) of being young men with not much of an idea what they wanted to do with their lives; the training course seemed new and interesting to them.
Walter talks extensively about the problems on the first training courses, while simultaneously defending Alexander. He quotes F.M. as saying, “All they were doing was going around imitating me like a cartload of monkeys!” According to Walter, Alexander expected the trainees to read the books and figure it out for themselves. When the trainees realized that they wouldn’t be taught they were disenchanted, and similarly so was Alexander when he realized they were so clueless. Reflecting to my own training I do remember after the first year (all I had originally planned to complete) thinking that I hadn’t learned anything about how to teach the Technique, even though the following two years were mostly the same in practice. I think this, wanting to find out what it was really about, kept me coming back. Strangely, there is no secret; only further refinement. Sometimes I joked, “I realized that somehow I became an Alexander teacher while I was busy working on myself.”
Walter provides many insights into the development of the Technique, both F.M.’s own personal development and his own additions as well as the additions of the other teachers of his generation. He says about the use of the hands, “It was only gradually that he [FM] began to find more and more that it was what he did with his hands that counted. As long as he made the right kind of soothing noises it didn’t seem to matter what he said.” He admits that F.M. never said where to put or how to use the hands; which kept with his minimalist approach. The advantage of having such an approach, according to Walter, is that the students learn most this way. Another interesting point is the connection of Delsarte to the origins of Alexander’s work. While most teachers admit that Alexander’s discovery and development of the technique as outlined in his books is pure fantasy and that there is no way he could have created the technique from nothing, very few teachers ask questions about his influences.
Walter does tell to the best of his ability the origins of the procedures, most of which were not of Alexander’s invention. Particularly of interest is how the saddle came to be used in the case of a child without the use of her legs. Crawling, which was developed by Dart and incorporated into training by Carrington, was a point of contention; he was defensive of crawling (or creeping as they say in England), as it was a criticism of his style by other schools of thought in the AT community at the time. He criticizes the wide stance that Patrick Mcdonald had students use, saying that it makes it easier for the students to get in and out of the chair but students learn less about inhibition and direction. He also warns against straightening the back against the wall (Dr. Barlow). The stories clarifying infighting between teachers from the first training courses litter the book and are a pretty big waste time as the people in question are all dead and the quarrels have little relevance to the principals of the work.
Walter points out that it was only by chance that table work was created at all; that at some point someone had the idea that the assistant teachers ought to put people on the table instead of always laying people on the floor. Also interesting is that Alexander had little to do with the development of table-work and that it was mostly the assistant teachers. While on the subject of tables, Walter objects to massage stating, “Massage is a terribly bad thing except for the most superficial kind of massage” adding that deep massage can actually damage tissue and make working with people on the AT more difficult. He had similar feelings about Rolfing.
There are long sections devoted to examining Alexander’s life views. While interesting, these kinds of questions have an undertone of suggestion that F.M. Alexander was some kind of Jesus type character who knew the truth and therefore should be emulated. Not only is this obviously false, from what I can gather about Alexander he would have wanted nothing of the sort; I believe he would have wanted people to figure their life views out for themselves. Carrington and Alexander both had an attitude toward religion that can be summed up as, “I don’t know.” A some-what related point that Carrington makes is, “FM always contended that it’s almost impossible to know what’s right, but that one could with time practically establish what is wrong and then set-up measures to avoid it.”
Among Alexander’s views explored were his views on other modalities such as Reich’s work, Osteopathy, Freud, and the Bates method. He was strongly opposed to all of them for separating the whole into parts and/or being an unproven theory being worked out on people (rather than a method derived from practical work and its theories coming from said work). While he may have been “right” in both cases, the attitude did not help the spread of his own work and often alienated the work from others; such was the case with Feldenkrais.
I believe the infighting between “similar” methods is related to the infighting between the first generation teachers and it certainly didn’t help any of the parties involved. On the whole, I was disappointed to see how much of the interview was concerned with these matters. That being said, the interview does offer an intimate view into the work of Alexander through Walter’s unique perspective.