Review: Dimon: Undivided Self

Mouritz titles

Aphorisms

Articles and Lectures

Constructive Conscious Control of the Individual

Directed Activities

Explaining the Alexander Technique

Freedom to Change

F. Matthias Alexander – The Man and His Work

Man's Supreme Inheritance

More Talk of Alexander

Personally Speaking

The Philosopher's Stone

The Universal Constant in Living

Conscious Control Journal

Mouritz Award

Library

All Alexander Technique literarture

Home > Library > Reviews

Alexander Technique Review 8.14.21

Reviews

Theodore Dimon, Jr.*

The Undivided Self
- Alexander Technique and the Control of Stress

1999 pb, 234+xx pages, illustrated, 229 x 156 mm, index, UK, Souvenir Press. 1556432941.

In print.

1. Review by Malcolm Williamson

2. Review by Nicholas Brockbank

1. Review by Malcolm Williamson

First published in STATNews, vol. 5 no. 5, September 1999.

The Undivided Self by Ted Dimon is a most important book that advances debate of the Alexander Technique from its usual historical perspective to present day health concerns and a new field of study. The control of stress - imbalance and muscular tension - is identified as a major challenge to personal health. There are no lack of physical or psychological treatment approaches but none try to explain why tension happens in the first place. Dimon’s book is not an exposition of the Technique, rather a commentary on how its application could prove to be a key to understanding and controlling stress and its diverse manifestations through improvement (or prevention) of poor “use”.

The author explains how supposed “holistic” methods focus on the therapeutic effects resulting from perceived interactions between mind and body: body-awareness techniques (mind over matter) or, vice-versa, muscular relaxation to calm the mind. Compare this with the concept of mind and body as a total system. Dimon explains that “we are not always granted the luxury of deciding how much attention a problem requires to be solved. If my car breaks down, I don’t complain to the car mechanic that I would prefer he only tune up my engine instead of repair it.” Yet when we meet a problem with ourselves, such as back pain, that requires an overhaul of our entire manner of use, then we may decide that this “doesn’t suit our pocketbook or calendar, and choose a more superficial one”. That merely mollifies rather than addresses the real causes.

The author makes a powerful case for the Alexandrian concept of psycho-physical unity, rather than separate interacting entities, and for regarding this as a discrete scientific field of study. Your reviewer, with an eye to rumoured restrictive legislation from the EEC Parliament wrote to the Privy Council in 1994 to enquire of a Royal Charter for the Society on grounds that we were experts in a distinct body of knowledge. The Clerk of the Privy Council’s reply was to the point: “I feel it only right to say that my personal view is that a Petition from your Society, representing a small group of teachers practising a particular method, would be most unlikely to be successful.” Having had time to consider this reply, I am inclined to agree. I have no doubt that the Technique is a particular (and unique) method for raising the standard of psycho-physical functioning. But the science that underpins it is not necessarily unique or specific to the field, and is shared with other areas such as cognitive neuroscience, psychology, sports sciences and some schools of physical therapy that focus on personal (re-)education techniques.

Much of the problem of correcting harmful habits lies in addressing the constellation of subconscious associations (ideas) that become part of the way we perform a particular activity. The author uses William James’ concept of ideomotor responses to argue the need for applying, what John Dewey (and Alexander, of course) termed, the Means Whereby Principle.

“The ‘end’ is the last act thought of; the means are the acts to be performed prior to it in time... We must change what is to be done into how. . . The end thus re-appears as a series of ‘what nexts’ and the what next of chief importance is the one nearest the present state of the one acting.”

Dewey Human Nature and Conduct, 1922.

Without a calm presence of mind in a step-by-step approach, muscular reaction “short circuits” to all the usual, habitual ideas and sensations associated with the ultimate goal.

The main message of Dimon’s book is that, rather than being content to rely on limited therapeutic benefits, what is really needed is a raised level of consciousness in the “patient” (pupil) so that he or she can observe activity as it happens - not easy, yet possible. One can then recognise harmful patterns of misuse for what they are, and discover how to refrain from them.

This may sound idealistic to those without an adequate understanding of what is involved, but with stress and back pain becoming ever more prevalent in our society (National Back Pain Week is 4-10 October) this is something of which eventually those in charge of our nation’s health must take note. Reading this book would make a good start.

2. Review by Nicholas Brockbank (www.dodman.org)

Previously unpublished.

The structure of this book, its thesis, its grammar and phrasing, its uncompromising nature and, it has to be said, its repetitiveness, all reminded me of the written work of FM Alexander. Such intense conviction, buried in such dense material, without much in the way of either illustration or diagram, are not what we have grown used to in recent years; but the unremitting weight of text does reflect the author’s conviction that the truth behind the Technique is not easily conveyed.

Unfortunately, since Ted Dimon’s approach is academic rather than populist, those most in need of this truth are least likely to find it through reading The Undivided Self. This book is not intended as a primer, and there is little possibility of it being widely read outside the immediate Alexander community. Even within that community, it seems more likely to gather dust on bookshelves than be mined for its veins of wisdom.

Ted Dimon begins his story with the homely account of his own introduction to the Technique. Having a back problem, he found the physical changes brought about by lessons immediately gratifying. At first, these changes happened unconsciously; then, in tandem with an awakening kinesthetic sensitivity, he gained a modicum of control over his reactions.

A problem arose, however, in connection with particularly stressful tasks, when he felt powerless, despite his best endeavours, to influence his use for the better. It was while observing the tenacious hold on his body still enjoyed by subconscious habit patterns, indissolubly linked to the mere idea of fulfilling an action, that Ted Dimon began to appreciate the true significance of consciousness in the way the Alexander Technique worked, and how profound the ramifications of changing the way he thought about doing something, rather than trying to do it differently, could be.

Dimon believes humans and most animals function largely subconsciously (by which he means habitually); but that consciousness is an attribute unique to our species, through which we can bring about change, both in our environment and within ourselves. He concedes that our subconscious processes are more likely than the average animal’s to become distorted, as a result of the peculiar stresses of civilised life; but holds that Alexander’s genius was in recognising we have the ability to rectify this, by raising those distortions to consciousness.

The bulk of The Undivided Self is taken up with exhortations to elevate in this way as much as possible that is currently subconscious. Here, Dimon makes a clear distinction between consciousness of our underlying intentions and awareness of their results. Repeatedly, he stresses that kinesthetic awareness, however accurate, and whatever the degree of control we gain over our muscular condition, is not enough to effect deep change; there must be an acknowledgement of what he calls “the total pattern of activity”.

Understanding what Dimon means by this is crucial, since it is the central tenet of his book. He believes that whatever stage we may have reached in recognising and ‘letting go’ of interference on a bodily level, it will be of no lasting avail if we have not developed our consciousness to the point where it is able to encompass our normally subconscious mental conceptions. He claims it is only when we enter a unified “state of mind and body”, where we are equally cognisant of both idea and action, that we become able to chose between following an habitual pattern of behaviour or acting non- habitually, however stressful the stimulus.

The problem for most people is likely to be one of recognition. Generally, acknowledgement of a physical reality, such as muscular imbalance, is more readily available to consciousness than recognition of what is causing it. It is relatively easy, as most Alexander students know, to learn to perceive, kinesthetically, the habit of pulling the head backwards and down; over time, it becomes the matter of a moment to stop doing this. It is far more problematic to recognise with equal facility the pattern of thought lying behind such a habit and discover how it might be restructured in order for similarly beneficial - and, Dimon claims, longer lasting - change to take place.

However much we as Alexander students may say we know our mental reaction to stimuli impacts on our muscular state, it is insidiously tempting to address that state directly - albeit through an indirect process - than to search for the intention behind the reaction.

It is precisely this search that Ted Dimon is insistent we must carry out, on a continuing basis. How we might do so remains a matter for ourselves. There are, frustratingly, no obvious guidelines. Asked to direct our attention to our bodies, we all have some notion of where in space they are; and knowing a location allows us to survey it better. Asked to direct attention to the internal processes with which we not only do this surveying but also formulate and carry out our underlying intentions - one result of which is the imperfect use being surveyed - it is hardly surprising we flounder.

It is because what is suggested in this book is so difficult to pin down that so few of us like emphasising it. The notion that we are truly indivisible, that our musculature is an exact reflection of our mental state, but that that mental state is to our physical state what Alexander believed the head was to the rest of the body - in other words, primary - is widely accepted within our profession. This isn’t an insight new to Ted Dimon; we all spend a lot of time talking about it. The problems arise when we try to put the idea into practice.

It would be regrettable if we were to think we had only ourselves, or our teachers, to blame for the deficient way we approach the Technique. One of our troubles is, what we do in teaching is so undeniably physical, with our use of the hands and our reliance on tables, that we rarely pay much attention to the finer points of our mental state. We espouse conscious control and think, naturally enough, that control over the retracting head is synonymous with reining in its less easily recognised cause; but fail to see how many of us have become contented body workers; which is not the discipline Alexander developed.

An alternative reason for our falling short may be that that discipline is incompatible with modern life. It is not hard to agree with Ted Dimon that humans have evolved a complex subconscious mechanism for dealing with the majority of tasks while leaving a more superficial part of ourselves free to get on and do other things. This is what enables us to think, in the abstract way animals can’t; and what allows us to build and maintain increasingly complex societies.

Unfortunately, Dimon’s solution to the resulting ills of use - that of raising as much as possible that is subconscious to a conscious level - raises the question of what we can reasonably expect to bring our attention to bear on at any one time. Of particular importance is whether such a procedure will jeopardise our ability to think about what we are not doing - in other words, to reflect - since it is on this unique skill that all human progress depends.

The trouble is, consciousness is not the same thing as the conscious mind. In many ways, the two are polar opposites. Ted Dimon may believe animals and children are little different from adult humans, in that they function largely subconsciously; but in the absence of our self-conscious veneer, beneath which any such repository of habits must lie, it seems more correct to say that all sentient beings are born in a state of full consciousness, from where adult humans, and growing children, are at various stages of alienation.

Such alienation is an essential feature of the human condition. Its result is the conscious mind, which is what marks us apart from other creatures; but our ability to reason, analyse or work out, is not part of the original consciousness common to us all. Paradoxically, the process of inhibition and direction, through which we hope to attain greater access to this state, depends – as civilisation does - on the same reasoning ability that took us from it in the first place.

The key question is, how much of Dimon’s “total pattern of activity”, which he accepts became largely subconscious in humans in order that we could be free to think, abstractly and reflexively, as we made our way in the world, can be allowed back to consciousness without it impacting on that freedom.

The answer may well explain why the Alexander Technique has become primarily a body oriented discipline. It is simply too hard for us to keep a grip on our place in the world without relying increasingly, rather than decreasingly, on our subconscious ability to handle the bulk of the work. The maintenance of society and civilisation depends on our being able to think for extended periods of time exclusively about subjects removed from the present. The less we continue delegating to our subconscious, the less we will be able to do this. Doing less abstract thinking would, of course, have useful repercussions, besides increasing consciousness and improving use; but it runs directly counter to much that we hold dear.

Reading The Undivided Self brings home how easy it is to believe we are conscious when we are not, and how difficult it is to become conscious without leaving behind the ego that feels it should simultaneously be bolstered by the process. It also reaffirms the possibility that animals, who often appear to act without reflection, if not mindlessly, may be already basking in the state we so feebly aspire to. Far from being in the vanguard, it is perhaps more appropriate to view ourselves as having fallen from their heights. What is particularly mortifying, knowing it is only conscious thought that prevents our enjoyment of full consciousness, is the realisation that without it would be unable to call ourselves human.

Selflessly, Ted Dimon has taken it upon himself to update, extend and amplify Alexander’s core beliefs and put them into the most modern context imaginable - the control of stress - without one iota of dilution. Sadly, the end result only serves to emphasise the fundamental impossibility of those core beliefs being realistically taken up by the modern world. That doesn’t make the Technique defunct; although it may not be the next evolutionary step, it is uniquely useful, remedially.