| First published in STATNews, vol. 6, no. 5, 2001. |
This is a welcome re-issue - in a revised and enlarged edition - of the 1986 publication. Although there is understandably some overlap, it complements his detailed commentaries on Alexander’s books*. Mr Carrington recalls in fascinating detail Alexander’s character and the evolution of his teaching; and his views on the Technique and its development, now prompted by further questions from Carey, should provide us with plenty to reflect on, as well as some grist for the mill.
I found of particulur interest his account of the origins of the procedures used in lessons. For example, that Alexander called for his assistant teachers to do the lying down work. It was carried out on the floor (the table came later) and although Alexander did not lie in semi-supine himself, he thought it a good idea for pupils and students to do so!
Mr Carrington re-iterates the importance of hands on the back of a chair as a model for putting hands on a pupil. This procedure involves, as he says, a subtle pull to the elbows, encouraging those “antagonistic muscular pulls”, yet he warns against “sticking out” the elbows when giving a lesson, because of the risk of overusing the shoulder muscles. The point is well taken, but his solution - dropping the elbows - may prevent the necessary experience of back, “back and up”. As in most things, it is a matter of finding the happy medium.
Although he acknowledges that Patrick Macdonald, of all the teachers on Alexander’s first training course, had developed a good grasp of what was required to teach the Technique, Mr Carrington still takes many opportunities to criticise Macdonald’s approach explicitly and, often, implicitly. Here is not the place to discuss this in detail and to be sure, all of us have our limitations, but to suggest that Macdonald required people to place their feet wide apart to get them more easily out of a chair - without any conscions thinking-in-activity - is a traversty. The fact is, Macdonald could move people in and out of chairs with considerable facility however he chose to do so, as he frequently demonstrated with a finger or elbow - even with the pupil’s feet close together.
Of all the classic procedures mentioned, the one missing is lunge, which I believe Macdonald must have devised? Along with the others it is a key to applying Alexander’s basic principles to everyday activities. It provides a useful insight into walknig and running, can be used as a prelude to going into monkey - a means of providing stability when picking things up - and on its own, is the model for pushing and pulling movements.
On the subject of excercising, Mr Carrington says “in my opinion, people need to be discouraged from doing specific exercises”. Carey tries to press him on this issue and the fact that conditions have changed a great deal since Alexander’s day is not addressed. From the push-chair to the wheel-chair, people are more chair-bound throughout their lives than ever, and while improving use at the computer is very necessary, can it be sufficient to maintain vitality and a good level of functioning? It could be argued that the Alexander Technique has a very constructive role to play in exploring exercising in “re-creative” ways. It is not enough, in relation to cycling, running and swimming, to hold that “the conditions (for these activities) are known to good coaches” and that all Alexander students have to do is keep their length. What has actually made a contribution is when the injured runner (Balk) or swimmer (Shaw) turns to Alexander work for salvation and, challenging conventional wisdom on techniques developed solely for sporting excellence, re-discovers the art of these activities in relation to the optimal use of mind/body as a whole.
One last query is to do with the onus he puts on all of us, especially newly-qualified teachers. He rightly claims that teaching the Alexander Technique is a vocation, that you have to live it and it won’t give you a great income; but he maintains that giving substantially fewer than 15 lessons a day is “just playing at it”! Does not the supply of teachers exceed demand for lessons, and is it not the case that however much most of us might want to be doing more, the work is just not out there? On the remunerative side I couldn’t resist working out annual gross income at 15 lessons a day, five days a week - allowing a generous six weeks’ holiday - at a fee of £25: it comes to £80,000 plus. Not bad, eh? Get to it!
* Explaining the Alexander Technique: The Writings of F Matthias Alexander in conversation with Walter Carrington & Sean Carey, The Sheildrake Press, 1992.
© Jonathan Drake. Reproduced with permission.
|
This edition © Mouritz 2005. All rights reserved. |
