Interview with Peggy Williams

pwiIn An interview with Peggy Williams (compiled by Glen Park) one catches a detailed glimpse of what training with F.M. Alexander was like. In addition to the fact that Alexander was likely in the prime of his teaching ability when Peggy trained, Patrick Macdonald and Walter Carrington (arguably the two most influential teacher trainers in the years following Alexander’s death) were assisting.

Ms. Williams relates how her experience in training released many emotional and physical demons from her difficult child & adulthood, listing daily breakdowns into tears, backaches, and fatigue. This went on for an astounding eighteen months before she “let herself be still.” A great example of how we can slow change by trying to hold ourselves together, rather than letting go of control. This “letting go” on her part was intimately tied to her idea of giving direction. “It was only when I stopped giving the orders to myself verbally that I really began to understand what it was all about,” she said.

Peggy tells a story of someone getting offended by her reactions to working with him and refusing to work with her which was a “guilty relief.” Ms.Williams asserts that tight wrists and hands were the cause of her experience, which was a major part of what I experienced in not-so-great turns from trainees. As I became more and more sensitive to the subtleties of direction and already achy from physical changes taking place, being pushed and pulled on- especially in a forward and down direction was very agitating. The possibility for interpersonal difficulties in training is a constant dynamic. Projection, giving/receiving feedback, and being practiced on by people with less refined skills was often uncomfortable.

One trainee in particular preferred to experiment without feedback, putting me in the position of either quietly taking what felt like abuse, or refusing to work in that way. After these experiences I empathized with my trainers more as they get quite a bit of inexperienced hands while the trainees figure things out. All the being said, what I experienced as a horrible Alexander experience would most likely be perceived as decent by the average person because relative to where they are. Patrick Macdonald is quoted as saying that for 30 years he took people down but relative to where they were it was up.

Ms. Williams gave this advice from working with Alexander, “Occasionally he’d stand one of us behind a pupil and put our hands on their shoulders and tell us that we must expect that the more our fingers felt like cotton-wool and useless the better it was.” She also warns against making non-doing an end in itself adding, “I just know what’s needed and I’m allowing for what is needed to happen.” She speaks to the different styles of teaching; stating, “I’ve heard praise for all sorts of people, though I personally wouldn’t want their hands near me. But different people have different things to offer.”

Peggy shares many anecdotal stories of Alexander’s input in relation to an AT concept, “Occasionally FM would come into class and look at us all sitting round and he’d say, “Just look at you all sitting round trying to be right” adding, “You still do see students and teachers doing this sort of thine, sitting up like rigid dummies … It gives then technique a bad name.” More and more I’m realizing how easy a trap this is to fall into. All teachers know that we are not supposed to “do” the directions, but what is it we are doing when our eye glaze over and we start to stiffen?

As for the question of the development of the technique she had this to say, “I’d like to see people if they are teaching the technique definitely teaching the technique and not mixing it with other things, that is for sure. I don’t like experimenting, except if you’re experimenting with your own skills and your own use in the framework of what Alexander taught.” adding, “There are many therapies that are valid in themselves. If you can use this technique to make you better at doing something else, that is absolutely fine, but I don’t like the idea of using part [Alexander] technique and part massage or something different.” This type of sentiment is abundant among the first generations of teachers but is somewhat fading with Alexander yoga, pilates, etc. I am in agreement with Peggy as surely the technique can (and should) be applied to specific activities but trying to learn bits and pieces of several moralities can muddy the water.

Perhaps more than anything else you get a sense of the tremendous difficulties you go through while training and learning the technique from this interview. Ms. Williams even comes right out and says that learning and changing is painful, however she offers the valuable advice that one ought to “Enjoy the hard work and thought.”

Using Nonviolent Communication to Enhance AT Practice

nonviolentNonviolent Communication: A Language of Compassion by Marshall B Rosenberg PhD is a powerful tool that helps one connect to their own feelings and needs as well as the feelings and needs of others. Typically, I would be writing about how the Alexander Technique enhances some other activity; my primary focus in this essay will be how to use NVC to enhance your AT practice.

While the author comes out early and states that NVC contains nothing new, he has pooled together a wealth of information with practical application and exercises designed to free us from the cycle of reactions so that our words “become conscious responses based firmly on an awareness of what we are perceiving, feeling, and wanting.”

The NVC Model as stated by Marshall Rosenberg:

  1. The concrete actions we are observing that are affecting our well-being
  2. How we are feeling in relation to what we are observing
  3. The needs, values, desires, etc. that are creating our feelings
  4. The concrete actions we request in order to enrich our lives

Within this form, there are two parts to NVC:

  1. Expressing Honestly
  2. Receiving Empathically

Let’s take a look at the different aspects of NVC and how they apply to the AT.

Observations

Dr. Rosenberg makes the point that judgement, making comparisons, and evaluation is life-alienating communication and traps our focus on rightness and wrongness; the result being that we only think of analyzing and classifying wrongness instead of focusing on unmet needs. If you think of this in the context of the type of awareness we deal with in Alexander work a typical thought process of a student might go like this: “I can’t get into the chair without stiffening my legs, and my neck is tight! Sally can do it, she’s better than me. I’m not very good at this. What’s wrong with me?”

Instead of focusing on what we may be doing “wrong” if we turn our attention to what we are needing in the moment to achieve our goal we will find our goal more attainable. MBR, “We learn to be ‘up in our head’ wondering, ‘What is it that others think is right for me to say and do?’ Rather than to be in touch with our feelings.” What happens when we as Alexander students try to do what we think the teacher wants or even try to directly do what we think is right without being in touch with what we are feeling and needing in the moment? Alexander use to say, “You want to feel-out whether you are right or not. I am giving you a conception to eradicate that. I don’t want you to care a damn if you’re right or not. Directly [if] you don’t care if you are right or not, the impending obstacle is gone.”

Feelings

NVC differentiates actual feelings from “words and statements that describe thoughts, assessments, and interpretations.” Some examples relevant to AT:

“My ankle is tight” vs “My weight is on the front of my foot”

“The student has a lot of up” vs “There is internal movement happening in this moment”

“I’m pulling down” vs “My head is going backward in space toward my spine”

NVC also puts emphasis on taking responsibility for one’s feelings. Dr. Rosenberg reminds us, “What others do may be the stimulus of our feelings, but not the cause.” adding “We see that our feelings result from how we choose to receive what others say and do as well as our particular needs and expectations in that moment.” In the context of the AT it is very important to take responsibility for our feelings. People often say things like:

“My back hurts” not “Something I’m doing is hurting my back”

“My arm hurts when I play the violin” not “My reaction to the stimulus of playing the violin is hurting my arm”

The idea that you can’t trust your feelings is thrown around quite a bit in the Alexander world. While it may be true that our feelings may not accurately represent the situation, they do accurately represent our interpretation of the situation, so it’s best to pay attention to them and ask, “What am I needing that is causing this feeling?”

Needs

Dr. Rosenberg strongly emphasises that needs are the root of feelings and that previously mentioned life alienating communication is often an expression of our unmet needs. He suggests that, “Expressing our needs directly gives us a better chance of having them met than using evaluation, interpretations, and images” and that we ought to practice translating evaluations into unmet needs. Some examples:

“My arm is tight, there are flaws in my technique.” vs. “I have a (unmet) need for comfort while playing”

“I’m not good at initiating movement” vs. “I have a need to improve my skill of initiating movement”

Requests

MBR, “The clearer we are about what we want back, the more likely it is that we’ll get it.” This statement reminds me of the Alexander concept of direction. The clearer our conception and request for neck free, head forward and up, torso lengthening and widening, knees forward and away; the more likely we’ll get it. Dr. Rosenberg advocates for, “Making requests in clear, positive, concrete action language [as this] reveals what we really want.” adding, “How can you do a don’t?” This is an interesting point as it is common practice in the AT to say, “don’t do this, don’t do that.” When we choose to use this methodology we should be careful to at least hint at what we do want.

I recently heard a story from a music professor who had hired an Alexander teacher to teach a class and was horrified when the teacher proceeded to humiliate a student on stage saying, “Don’t do that!” repeatedly when the student didn’t have any idea how to not do what she was doing or what she ought to do instead. It is interesting to note that Alexander framed the directions positively, perhaps he was onto the same thing.

Expressing Honestly & Receiving Empathically

Worrying about what others think, that we might be wrong or not good enough can be a stimulus for us to be dishonest with ourselves and others. However, if we are not honest with ourselves about our problems we can’t possibly hope to resolve them. Dr Rosenberg’s instructions in regards to receiving empathically is striking similar to Alexander’s concept of inhibition. MBR, “When we sense ourselves being defensive or unable to empathize, we need to stop, breathe, scream nonviolently or take time out.” When we allow ourselves to be truly present, noticing what feelings and needs arise without reacting, we then can make a choice as to how to respond. MBR notes that our habits of reacting by advising, one-upping, educating, counseling, storytelling, shutting down, sympathizing, interrogating, explaining, and correcting get in the way of true empathy- simply being with the other person (or yourself) and listening for what they (or you) are observing, feeling, needing, and requesting.

The remainder of the book goes on to explore the power of empathy, expressing anger fully, the protective use of force, liberating ourselves and counseling others, and expressing appreciation in NVC. On a personal note, NVC has helped me become more empathic with myself and others which has enriched my Alexander practice. NVC has proved itself invaluable in interacting with people who have violent and/or passive-aggressive habits of communication. I use to avoid possible friction; now I see an opportunity to practice inhibition by not reacting with the same sentiment I receive, followed by searching for their feelings and needs in hopes that empathy can provide some healing.

Finally let’s compare a statement from Judy Leibowitz to one by Marshall Rosenberg:

JL: “Ultimately, the Alexander Technique will help you deal with any life situation. To accomplish this you must give yourself the most important gift you can give to yourself: time. It takes time to incorporate and direct your energies to learning the Alexander Technique, you will not only change in ways that you want but also discover new and unexpected beneficial changes in your life.”

MBR: “Probably the most important part of learning how to live the process that we have been discussing is to take our time.  We may feel awkward deviating from the habitual behaviors that our conditioning has rendered automatic, but if our intention is to live life in harmony with our values, then we’ll want to take our time.”

Interview with Walter Carrington

walter210pxIn 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.

Connecting Links

IreneTaskerfmalexanderbooksConnecting Links is a transcript of an informal talk given by Irene Tasker in 1967. By this point Irene had over fifty years of experience teaching the Alexander Technique. She had a unique position as a teacher of Montessori who applied the Alexander Technique to her teaching of mostly ‘disabled’ children with tremendous success. A proponent of the technique in the field of education, she had close ties to John Dewey and was herself a connecting link as she was instrumental in the writing and editing of the majority of Alexander’s books.

In the talk she describes the largest takeaway from her work with Montessori as observation and attention to the ‘means whereby’ recalling, “I learned from Montessori that my function as a teacher was primarily to observe and, according to what I observed, to provide each child with material best suited to him at his particular stage, and then acting as his guide, to give him the least help necessary to enable him to educate himself.” She stresses repeatedly through the talk the importance of giving the means, not the ends. I can’t help but compare this to my philosophy of teaching the viola where my main goal is to teach my students how to practice, how to figure out problems on their own.

Ms. Tasker’s descriptions of the writing and editing of F.M.’s books was a very interesting section in the talk. I had no idea that she and Ms. Ethel Webb had worked so extensively on them and they deserve added credit. She seemed to be a bit defensive about some criticism of Alexander’s books that were circulating at the time stating, “On the question of repetition, F.M. was insistent that you had to say things over and over again if you wanted them to sink in.” She also very fairly asserts that, “I think it is true to say that there are some people who prefer to know first about the Technique and from what they read decide whether or not to know it. Equally, there are others who are not interested to read about the Technique and the philosophy with it, until they know the effects of the working of the Technique upon themselves.”

A point that comes up in the talk has been bouncing around my mind, as I enjoy writing about the AT; to express concepts previously unexpressed in language is bound to be problematic and that writing which concerns itself with truth requires work to understand. I often find that only after I experience a truth, that I can recognize and appreciate it.

There is a wonderfully charming and heartwarming account of Ms. Tasker’s application of the Alexander Technique at the “little school” as well as other teaching positions she held over the years. She stresses the importance of applying the work to speaking advising, “I don’t think too much importance can be placed on the application of the work to speaking” adding “I think it should be part of the training of Alexander teachers. It is true that we teach with our hands to convey sensory experiences, but it is speech which conveys the ideas of which the sensory experiences are the counterpart.” Reflecting back on my training, I wish more emphasis was put on this, it took quite a while before I felt I could keep my inhibition and direction going while speaking and was often tempted to work in silence. We certainly did not spend the kind of time Alexander did working with speaking from what I can gather from the accounts of the early trainings.

I can’t help but relate to Ms. Tasker’s experience with the work. She describes taking the concept of inhibition to an extreme and F.M.’s response, “The other extreme of too hasty reaction, [F.M. went on] is drift.” I find this point to be one of the most difficult in practicing the AT. It seems Ms. Tasker did also as she mentions, “To keep the delicate balance between refusing consent to wrong doing and giving consent to the new doing seems to me the never-ending task for us all, both in our own use and carrying over that use into teaching.”

I love her response to the ever present question of progress in the AT: “We tend to speak of the ‘work’ and ‘the progress of the work’ forgetting that ‘we’ are the work.” I take that to mean that the collective body of Alexander teachers and students working (inhibiting and directing) will determine any progress in the work as a whole, not the perfect image or breakthrough scientific theory of the Technique.

Although the talk is nearly fifty years old, it seems as relevant as ever. Perhaps Ms. Tasker and I are kindred spirits as her emphasis on “not knowing”, that we [teachers] are the learners, and using Technique to connect the different parts of our understanding so we are more than the sum of the parts reflect my own values.

The Alexander Technique

theatliebconnThe Alexander Technique by Judith Leibowitz & Bill Connington opens, not with a technical definition or theoretical/philosophical description as many books on the Alexander technique do, instead the authors choose to begin with a relatable list of a variety of imaginary people with stress related ailments asking the reader what they have in common followed by a very straightforward explanation that excess tension and stress are direct results of misuse of the body. They even go so far as to list a number of conditions that can be alleviated by using the Alexander Technique.

Many modalities preach awareness, however, few directly improve specific awarenesses. The authors assert that Alexander’s technique heightened his awareness on many levels; including (from the Introduction):

  • kinesthetic- He became aware of (1) the feelings and tensions in his body and (2) his body in space.
  • visual- He saw his habits more clearly.
  • structural- He had greater knowledge of his anatomy and movement.
  • intellectual- He was more clearly aware of his thinking process.
  • emotional- He saw how he interacted and behaved with other people and his environment.

The book has a warm, personal and relatable style, detailing the personal journeys of Judy (who overcame many aspects of Polio) and Bill (who overcame personally learned mal-coordination to hone his skill as an actor). After the authors’ stories the book moves into case studies of many Alexander students which are more akin to personal stories of transformation from students than scientific case studies keeping the tone personal. Along with the theme of personal transformation, there seems to be an interest in childhood development as the later crops up repeatedly throughout the book and it’s importance is stressed; the authors on the subject, “We have to overcome our schooling and conditioning, which was of a goal-oriented or “end-gaining” nature that often leads to a fear of learning and of succeeding.”

Another theme that is recurrent is mindset. The authors assert that mindsets or beliefs create muscular holdings in the body and that leaving one’s self alone is key. They cite Zen in the Art of Archery as an accurate description of the Alexander process and go on to describe the relationship between the principals of the AT; Inhibition, Mental Directions, and Sensory Awareness (in that order). They detail the primary directions and their meaning. Interestingly, the direction, “and let my shoulders widen” is given equal value to the other directions.

The authors make a case for learning basic anatomy stating, “Because the mental directions refer to the anatomical structure, understanding the structure will help understand direction.” The authors make a case against visualization which is interesting as many teachers do not follow this advice, “Unlike some teachers, we do not ask our students to think of their bodies as balloons filled with helium, or to imagine the tension draining out of their bodies like water down a sink drain- in other words, we do not work with what is usually known as visualization.”

In the next chapters on mind-body connection and self-image & psychological factors there are more stories from the authors about how the AT accelerated progress in psychotherapy, relating the experience to the work of Reich. There are also many more stories of personal transformation related to those topics from students keeping with the overall personal and relatable tone of the book.

Some interesting tidbits to put in context of time are the questions, “How much does an AT lesson cost?” and “How often should I take lessons?” The answer to the former is $30-70, which means the cost hasn’t risen all that much since the book was written in 1990. The answer to the later is also interesting as she mentions that Alexander would tell people to come for a “course of lessons” meaning five lessons a week for six weeks. The authors advocates for three lessons a week for two weeks, two lessons for two weeks, then a lesson per week citing financial and time constraint changes in the average person since Alexander’s death. Also interesting is the advice to get a referral from your doctor and send in an insurance claim/reimburse form for your Alexander lessons; I wonder what the success rate for this practice is.

Following this is a section on what happens in lessons which in addition to the overall style and tone of the book make it an excellent introduction to the Alexander technique. The authors note that group classes are more economical but, “You must remember that the hands-on help is the most important part of the lesson.” Also in this section is useful information for student and teacher, “The Alexander teacher never forces a change upon a student but asks the student to think the directions so that messages are sent from the student’s brain through the nervous system to the muscles.”

The second half of the book contains “The Leibowitz Procedures” which Judy developed while teaching actors at Juilliard. While Judy notes that the Leibowitz Procedures and the Alexander Technique are not the same thing, they include many of the movements a teacher would guide a student through in an Alexander lesson. The section opens with instructions on how to observe yourself accompanied by a long list of questions leading to awareness of specific parts. This is then taken into activities including speaking, sitting at the computer, writing, talking on the phone, driving, climbing stairs, lifting heavy objects, vacuuming, carrying bags, sleeping, and gardening.

Following this trend Judy takes the procedures and applies them to sports and exercise activities such as weightlifting, swimming, biking, aerobics, walking, running, golf, tennis, dancing, skiing, riding, horse riding, and yoga. Judy mentioned earlier in the book that one of the purposes of the book was to offer a chance for the many people who don’t have access to an Alexander teacher nearby something to work with on their own. The Liebowitz Procedures are some of the best instructions for self-study that I’ve come across, however there is much less of a chance for success without a teacher’s hands as the authors admit.

The book concludes by stating that the Alexander technique is a tool for living and will help you deal with any life situation, but that you must give yourself plenty of time. As Judy had a hand in training most of the teachers that trained me, I can clearly see her influence in their teaching. It’s interesting to me to note the points where my trainers departed from her methodology as she didn’t have a cookie-cutter process. It’s clear through her writings and her influence on several generations of teachers that her commitment to the principals and skill made her a master teacher of the Alexander technique.

Body Learning

LB-body-learningBody Learning by Michael J. Gelb was one of the first texts I read on the Alexander Technique, as it was required reading in the very first group introduction to the AT class I took. Upon re-reading it I see now why my teacher and so many others recommend the book to people with little or no experience with the AT. The book contains all of the core concepts of the Alexander Technique with minimal pontificating on possibilities of the future of mankind and other dense topics that plague many AT books, including ones written to be introductions. Also somewhat important in an introduction to the Alexander technique, which can sometimes be seen as a strange and esoteric practice, is the fact that Michael Gelb carriers some weight as an author from his other books which lends itself to the AT; not to mention the many endorsements by well-known individuals in related fields and a foreword by Walter Carrington.

I don’t remember being very taken by the book when I read it in college except for a few points here and there which were revolutionary for me at the time, mostly to do with observing without judgement and the effects of trying to be ‘right’ vs letting the right thing do itself. Being such a stereotypical Westerner, anything resembling Zen was far outside my experience except for the times I’d stumbled into it while practicing the viola. The author quotes F.M. Alexander, “Everyone wants to be right, but no one stops to consider if their right is right.”

As I read the book more recently, I was interested in the book as a potential teaching tool for my students. Right off the bat, I have to say I love the title and cover photo. As with his other books, he shows off his cleverness with double-entendre (ex. Thinking for a Change). I was more than satisfied with the descriptions of Alexander, the detailed timeline of his life and the development of his work, as well as his organizing the principals into ‘operational ideas’ which comprise the first two sections of the book. Mr. Gelb repeatedly makes it known that it is essential to work with a qualified Alexander teacher as the book does leave one wanting something to practice. At one point he describes the “ultimate Alexander exercise” as picking up your phone and making a lesson appointment. In all fairness, there are questions designed to broaden ones awareness at the end of each chapter but the book is hardly a do-it-yourself guide- the primary focus seems to be on building awareness which is the first and arguably largest step.

In fact, I get the sense that Mr. Gelb may be intentionally leaving certain explanations vague as to let a teacher fill in the blanks with hand-on experience (the best way to learn the work). He moves very quickly through many concepts and one is left with a general idea of the technique without a lot of specifics about the inner workings, which again may be best for the beginner as it is somewhat well-known amongst Alexander teachers that a lot of theoretical knowledge of the technique can actually slow learning in the practical sense, the two must be cultivated together, organically.

The author sums up what is commonly known as the mind-body problem quite concisely by stating, “[so long as we keep in mind that the whole is more than the sum of its parts.] Most personality problems are the result of conflict between these parts. Our bodies tell us one thing, our thoughts another and our emotions yet another (for example, I want to eat some cake; no, I shouldn’t, I’ll get fat; I feel guilty about eating, and so on.)” Another favorite quote of mine from the author illustrating that habits are always there but we can choose not to indulge, “I use to be characterized by a raised chest, tight stomach, set jaw, and hunched shoulders- the classic male defensive-aggressive posture. Now I am free to save this for special occasions!”

Mr. Gelb moves from the principals of the AT into a section “Learning how to Learn” which contains relevant ideas to the AT such as, how children so easily learn, fear, cultivating attention, experimentation, and non-interference vs effort. He then uses a number of illustrations of himself applying the principals of the technique to learning skills including: singing, juggling, teaching, riding a unicycle, speed reading, writing, running, swimming, public speaking, and Aikido. This is the best part of the book in my opinion as it shows the AT in action vs concepts out of context. While his explanations of the concepts earlier in the book are sometimes only adequate, the personal stories of his application of the technique are very useful and entertaining. The only exception to this being the section on Alexander work and organization change as he never bridges the gap between philosophical ideas and practical applications; although it is a cute look at the subject of organizational change through Alexander jargon, showing how organizations behave like organisms.

In Body Learning, Michael Gelb also manages to bring together most of the gems from many of the authoritative Alexander Technique texts; you would normally have to wade through many pages and chapters of dense writing to find these otherwise, and that’s asking a lot of someone who isn’t terribly invested in learning the technique. You could argue that this is the best aspect of the book, as many of the source materials are out of print and there is no shortage of explanations of the principles and applications of the work available nowadays, perhaps this was different when the book was written in 1981.

Overall, Body Learning is a worthwhile read to anyone interested in the Alexander Technique, even those with a lot of experience as the wonderful quotes, application descriptions, and pictures alone make it worth reading; it also makes a great gift to friends who are curious about the technique. The organization of the book also lends itself well to the group class setting as you can have a class per section in the book, giving the next section as homework to speed-up the understanding, and reduce the amount of time in class spent on explaining the concepts so you can get to the most important part- the hands-on work.