Review: Weed: Basic Principles

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 8.33.12

Reviews

Donald L. Weed*

The Basic Principles Workbook
- A Self-directed Guide for Study in the Alexander Technique

1991 spiral-bound, 215 pages, A4, spiral bound, Switzerland, 1445 Publications.

Out of print.

1. Review by Jean M. O. Fischer

2. Review by Jonathan Drake

1. Review by Jean M. O. Fischer

Unpublished, 1991.

F. M. Alexander’s writings have always been a source of inspiration to the challenge of learning the Technique. For those who find Alexander’s writings a challenge in themselves there are now two study-guides by Barstow-trained teachers, Catherine Kettrick and Donald Weed.

Donald Weed’s book is subtitled “A Self-Directed Guide for Study in.the Alexander Technique” and he calls it “the blueprint of a quick and effective procedure for learning what is involved in Alexander’s work.” The quick and effective method? Answer 1,157 questions.

The book consists of study questions and essay questions for selected chapters in F. P. Jones’s Body Awareness in Action, E. Maisel’s Alexander Technique - the essential writings and for a chapter in CCC. The questions are point through the reading material.” Sample of study question: “What did FM’s method do to consciousness, and what did this allow one to-obtain?” (page I/question no. 2). Sample of essay question: “Frank’s [P. Jones] suggestion that the psychological effects happen as a “side-effect” imply that,the mental and emotional changes occur as a result of a total change in the relation between head and trunk. Do you agree or disagree? Support your argument.” (8/14). After a set of these questions which cover a chapter in one of the books, there is a list of “information bits” which are one-sentence extracts from the chapter. These provide ‘highlights’ of the chapter as well as acting as clues to the answers for the questions. In addition there are in total 8 self-administered examinations which consists of 15 questions (5 points each), two essays questions (15 and 10 points) and an extra credit question (5 points). Sample from self-test no. 4: “Sherrington wrote that the brain seemed to be something. What was it that the brain seemed to be?” (5 points), (89/3). Sample of essay question: “When Alexander comes to consider his means of direction, what does he conclude is his method of direction? As I have shown elsewhere, feelings can only happen after a movement. Does it make sense to use something which happens after an event as a guide before the event happens? At this point, Alexander is looking for post-event elements to act as a source of guidance for the event. How much success is he likely to have? Why?” (10 points), (61/1). This is a leading question which reveals Mr. Weed’s own understanding of the Technique; a reader who disagrees with Mr. Weed’s interpretation will have problems answering such a question.

Some questions are both relevant and interesting although these - almost per definition - are not easy to answer, like “What did FM mean by inhibition? (Be complete)”, (62/7). Other questions are interesting because they deal with a disputed issue which we all have to face: ‘“They’were confident that the words they used to describe what they did were the best that could be found.’ [F. P. Jones describing FM and AR]. What is the importance of words in this work? Does it matter which ones you use? If a student doesn’t understand an explanation which you believe to be the best way to answer a question, should you repeat the answer or try to find a new way to explain the answer? Why?”, (141/5).

The author appears to argue for examinations in the theory of the Technique when he states that he believes “that each Alexander teacher should have a complete and thorough understanding and mastery of this material [i.e. approx. 100 pages of text] as part of the minimum standards of becoming a teacher.” I fail to see how it can be a “complete and thorough understanding and mastery” as our understanding.dependes on our experience. In addition; there will always be the difficulty of deciding which questions to ask, how to phrase them, and the problem of judging the correctness of the answers. Some of the author’s questions are completely irrelevant for teaching the Technique, for example: “Name two places where FM taught?” (13/19) “Who were the first five Alexander teachers and how were they trained? Who was the sixth?” (78/27) ,”According to the text, how would you characterize Huxley’s mind/body unity?” (82/7) “What is the Alexander Technique Chicken Joke?” (83/36) “Louise Morgan believed that if FM had become the Mother Theresa of the mind/body disciplines and worked exclusively with ordinary people, he would have become a world figure, a benefactor of mankind. Frank [P. Jones] says that his commerce with the famouse, rich, and titled was an important aspect of’his establishing the work. What do you think?” (64/111)

It is equally irrelevant to rehearse Alexander’s biological and evolutionary ideas which are outdated. To answer the question “From where does all growth and development come?” (101/4) by quoting Alexander, “In the beginning of things, all growth and development must surely have resulted from a form of consciousness of need” (CCC, p. 19) won’t cut any ice with a biologist.

Repetition of intellectual knowledge, separated from experience and the true understanding that comes with it, is devoid of any teaching purpose. The author, however, finds that “it is a very good.practice to see how many answers I can give to these questions and how we’ll I can support all of the answers that I give.” Arguing a point for the sake of it doesn’t increase one’s understanding of the Technique, but it does improve one’s ability to talk about the Technique - something at which the author excels. I gather that he sincerely believes in teaching the Technique by verbal persuasion. I understand from F. P. Jones’s book that Alexander believed at the beginning of his teaching career that the sheer logic of theargument would make people adopt his principles, but experience taught him otherwise. Logical arguments are useful to persuade people to enter and accept the process of change, but they are not the cause of the change itself; this is due to inhibition and direction.

In support of the rhetorical way of teaching the author states: “I believed then, as I do now, that the person who spoke most accurately and eloquently about this work was Mr. Alexander. From this, I reasoned out that the more a student knew about what Alexander wrote, the clearer the student’s concept of the work would become. The clearer the student’s concept, the greater would be the student’s capacity to do the work independently.” I disagree with this line of reasoning. Instead of knowing about Alexander’s writings - as opposed to understanding it - it is crucial that one has the experiences which were the source of his writings. I agree with the author that Alexander wrote from experience, not from theory, that Alexander wrote everything for a reason and that what may seem wrong in Alexander’s writings may be due to our lack of experience, but I part company when he suggests that this textual question-answer format is a good or even necessary way to improve one’s understanding of the Technique. Sure, it is better than not reading Alexander at all, but creative thinking on the part of the reader questioning and thinkng about those parts which are within the reader’s experience, and therefore relevant and alive to the reader, is better than this mechanical school approach. Answering the questions unselectively, in the order they are given, would be to ignore the different experiences and needs of individuals. How then should an individual use this question-and-answer system? Mr. Weed’s approach appears to lead either to learning by rote, or a haphazard hit-and-miss attitude - and neither are good methods for learning.

Books like this one may encourage people to believe there is practice to learn (as taught in the ‘follow-the-photos’ books) and a theory to learn (through studying Alexander’s writings), and thereby keep the mind-body dichotomy alive and well. Thought and action are, however, a unity and, whenever we challenge,one, we challenge both, and not just a separate movement or a separate idea. Operating with separate parts is merely habit substitution guided by feelings rather than conscious control. Furthermore, this approach might well stimulate right-wrong motivation which often hinders people in learning the Technique. Perhaps trainees will respond to their natural feelings of insecurity by ‘studying’ Alexander’s writings according to these guides. These study-guides are only useful for the practice of the Technique in so far as they stimulate some independent and creative thinking on the many important aspects of the Technique. To paraphrase Alexander, they may teach you Alexander’s writings till they are black in the face - you still have this to face, sticking to a decision against your habit of life. For Alexander armchair enthusiasts this book is a dream, providing many hours of fun playing with words and memorising tit-bits. Personally, if the reading of Alexander’s books has to be turned into a game of trivial pursuit, I would prefer a boardgame version.

2. Review by Jonathan Drake (Includes a review of What a Piece of Work. . . by Catherine Kettrick)

First published in The Alexander Journal no. 13, 1993.

Do you agree with the judge in Alexander’s South African legal action that “in Alexander’s books [his] ideas are tangled in a mass of words” or do you subscribe to Mr. Weed’s view that “there is a tendency to discount Alexander’s writings and to place too high an emphasis on experiential work”? These books certainly challenge our views on the place of Alexander’s writings in learning his Technique.

Donald Weed, who studied with Marjorie Barstow and Frank Pierce Jones, teaches groups in the Alexander Technique and has a private practice where he combies “standard chiropractic and massage treatment techniques with Mr. Alexander’s principles of movement and guidance”. The material in his workbook was developed over many years of teaching students at American universities and at the Performance School, Seattle, and is normally taught over four weekends. He bases the material on selections from Edward Maisel’s edited writings of Alexander (including the first chapter of Use of the Self, “Evolution of a Technique”), the entire “Incorrect Conception” chapter from Alexander’s Constructive Conscious Control of the Individual and most of Frank Pierce Jones’s Body Awareness in Action - the commentary on Alexander’s books and his history of the Technique. Weed’s core material contains only a tenth of what Alexander wrote, yet there are nearly a thousand questions to work through. You are recommended to write out verbatim the answers as found in the text to the study questions for each section. Having got the facts straight, you are then faced with essay questions to sort out the ideas and issues. Each selection is rounded off with Weed’s selection of the key points and a self-test.

The selection is fair enough and his conviction that “each Alexander teacher should have a complete and thorough understanding of this material as part of the minimum standards of becoming a teacher” I had some sympathy with; few would now disagree that Alexander’s writings should be an assessed part of any teacher-training curriculum (but how complete should that knowledge be?). However, as I read further and the implications of his approach became clearer, I came to the conclusion that behind an excruciatingly detailed knowledge of Alexander’s books is a denial of the primacy of the experience of individual lessons in learning the Alexander Technique. Do not doubt that Weed says what he means, namely: “this volume contains the blue-print for a quick and effective procedure for learning what is involved in Alexander’s work”, notwithstanding that “one of the best ways to gain practical experience is in a lesson under the guidance and direction of a teacher” (my italics). Should the general public or indeed, teachers, be led to believe that academic analysis of Alexander’s writings in itself can teach the Technique? Did Alexander intend that his books be used in that way? It is quite clear from the introductions to his books that he was interested in promoting his Technique through his writings, but he emphasised that words, while necessary, can only point to the unfamiliar experience of better use which must be conveyed, individually, through the hands of a properly trained teacher.

Weed, in his “introductory”, claims that we argue over Alexander’s ideas because we have not read him properly. He attempts to substantiate that claim over four pages, using as examples the misreading of “introduction” for “introductory” and his experience of misquoting Alexander - although, as he later found out, he had got the gist of it! No examples are given of significant misapprehension of Alexander’s ideas. Are discussions on the minutiae of Alexander’s writings what the Alexander world generally argues about? Or are they a refuge for those with little experience of the proper working of the primary control, driven, therefore, to the almost impossible task of trying to recreate Alexander’s work from his writings? Weed, analysing the core material of his second most important selection - the “Incorrect Conception” chapter of C.C.C. - overlooks in his summing up of the main ideas what are surely the punch-lines: “the mass is made up of individuals and reliable sensory appreciation cannot be given on the mass-teaching principle ... This can only be done by individual teaching and individual work” (last paragraph). Perhaps in second place should be the “Illustration” chapter from C.C.C. (Jones’s discussion on this issue is completely avoided by Weed in his summary); where the procedure of placing the pupil’s hands on a chair is fully described - but then it does give a clear account of some basic Alexander instruction.

After Weed’s volume, you may baulk at his colleague Kettrick’s appraisal of F.M. as one of the “Great Writers of the Western World” and her unexpurgated study guide to all four of Alexander’s books; she manages just 1334 questions. Surprisingly, for an academic tome, no references are given for the quotations prefacing each chapter study section . . . but perhaps you are supposed to search diligently for them.

If you were to do all this spade work suggested, so what? You might win Mastermind, but would you know the wood for the trees? Kettrick offers a “Supplemental Thought Section” at the end of her manual, totalling just seven questions, which are supposed to pull it all together, perhaps even she ran out of steam. This kind of approach to Alexander’s books confirms my impression that the man, genius though he was in his pioneering work on himself, was not a great communicator. Arguably his most gifted student, the late Patrick Macdonald, claimed that he learnt most from Alexander by learning to observe what he was doing. MacDonald pared the work down in his last years to two questions: do you know what you are doing?; and do you know what you intend? Surely the royal road to learning the Alexander Technique does not lie in the pernickety disection of Alexander’s verbosity? “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” 2 Corinthians 3:6.