| First published in STATNews, vol. 5 no. 1, May 1998. |
The title is derived from a reference to Nikolaas Tinbergen’s 1973 Nobel Oration and the ensuing correspondence in the scientific press, chiefly New Scientist and (later) Science. Dr. Hehr, addresses criticisms levelled at Tinbergen and Wilfred Barlow, who apparently read drafts of the second part of Tinbergen’s speech concerned with the Alexander Technique.
The main critic turns out to be Edward Maisel who in 1969 published Resurrection of the Body, later re-titled The Essential Writings of F.M. Alexander. Maisel’s own views on the Technique are not clear and comments range from scorn to eulogy. He was behind comments made in a critique of Tinbergen’s lecture by Roger Lewin, “Did Nobelist go too far in Advocating Alexander Technique?” (New Scientist in 1974). Over the ensuing months there was a literary ding-dong until the editor brought things to a close in January 1975 (vol. 65, no. 932). After a lull, Maisel seemed to have made another offensive in the May and June (1975) pages of Science (vol. 188, nos. 4187 and 4192).
Letters to the editors are reproduced with notes and commentary by Hehr. who speculates as to Maisel’s motives (“skulduggery, literary rivalry or ‘fun”‘?) for asserting that Tinbergen failed to apply the same critical analysis to the Alexander Technique as he had done in his own field of ethnology. Tinbergen has first been intrigued by the AT from reading Barlow’s book, The Alexander Principle (1973). Having failed to establish that Tinbergen had had second thoughts - in fact he was even more convinced of beneficial effects after his family had lessons - criticism turned to what were seen as exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims for the Technique in Barlow’s book.
Hehr’s book also includes Peter Macdonald’s article, “Instinct And Functioning In Health And Disease” (BMJ, 25 Dec. 1925: 121f.) as an example of how the Technique can successfully be presented to the medical fraternity and an unpublished letter from Frank Pierce Jones (June 1975?) to the editor of Science.
It is a pity the book is peppered with typos (e.g. “New Axiwnriar’! [New Scientist], p49). 1973 was in many ways a turning point in the history of the Technique. Alexander had been dead for almost 20 years and his books were out of print (due to his younger brother, Beaumont). Maisel’s book (1969), followed by Barlow (1973) and then Tinbergen’s Lecture were the beginning of an awakening general interest in the Technique that has continued to flourish. The links between these event are examined but, as with the recently re-published book by Westfeldt, it also reflects Hehr’s own preoccupation which in this case could be to “legitimise” the Technique in the eyes of the medical world.
© Malcolm Williamson. Reproduced with permission.
|
This edition © Mouritz 2005. All rights reserved. |
