When actor Jonathan Pryce was asked which book changed his life, he replied:
The one the teacher put under my head during the Alexander technique sessions at RADA. I grew an inch and a half.
‘Q&A: Jonathan Pryce’, The Guardian, 7 March 2015
And now RADA – The Royal Academy of Dramatic Art – is proposing cutting their Alexander Technique (AT) programme by 70%, and is in redundancy consultation with its director of 40 years. What’s worse, there appears to be a degree of skulduggery in the consultation process with students.
The creator of the petition has explained the significance of AT at RADA as follows:
One to one and group Alexander Technique classes are, for many, the backbone of the training at RADA, an area of work that simply cannot be done quickly; it takes time and patience, but it feeds into voice, movement and acting work. The patience, gentleness and presence that Alexander Technique’s approach offers isn’t captured in other areas of teaching, yet it is fundamental to a longevous artistic practice. It’s also unique to RADA, having been phased out certainly of other British drama schools (yet remaining at both Yale and Julliard), and is something that, without being exposed to as students, is an area of practice that many students will be completely aware of, and/or unable to access.
Caitlin McEwan
And here’s another insightful petition comment:
Refined over generations of experience in the world of the performing arts, the Alexander Technique is unique in its ability to support actors throughout their development and careers by training them l to look after their health and to optimise their skills by accessing their full physical, vocal and emotional range. It would be a great disservice to up-and-coming actors to deprive them of this powerful and transformative practice that is so fundamental to an actor’s craft and ongoing wellbeing. It is especially distressing that Katya Benjamin, a teacher with so much expertise and experience, is threatened with redundancy.
It was a privilege to work again with the British Suzuki Music Association, this time at their National Workshop in Bristol.
The three-day event was held at Badminton School in north Bristol in April, attended by around 150 young musicians and their parents or carers. As you would expect from a Suzuki event, the activities were immensely varied. There were programmes in violin, viola, cello, piano, flute, recorder and trumpet. There were masterclasses, groups, ensembles, orchestras and talks for parents and teachers. The enrichment activities comprised Alexander Technique, choir, composition and yoga.
My contribution involved group classes on the Alexander Technique, as well as strategies for music performance anxiety (MPA). Here are some topics I covered:
Unity of Self: the ‘kaleidoscope principle’ and the ‘two-way street principle’;
Here’s one of the diagrams I used, which is always a great talking point:
One-to-one Alexander Technique sessions were also available over the three days. Parents sometimes attended these with their children – in one class I even worked with a mother and her triplets!
Both the NHS and Parkinson’s UK recognise that the Alexander Technique (AT) is useful for people living with Parkinson’s Disease (PwP). In fact, there has been over 25 years of research into the benefits of AT in this context.
The first important study was a randomised controlled trial demonstrating that AT had a positive impact on PwP’s everyday activities, their disability and their emotions. More recent research has focused on the mechanisms whereby AT improves balance and mobility among PwP.
You can read about the myriad ways in which AT has helped PwP below, with all references at the end.
Stallibrass (1997)
A small preliminary study was undertaken to test whether AT could be effective in helping PwP manage their disability.
In the study, seven PwP were given an average of 12 AT lessons. Following the lessons, it was found that participants were less depressed; had a more positive body concept; had less difficulty in performing daily activities; and had less difficulty in both fine and gross movement.
Results were statistically significant, and paved the way for the large-scale study which followed.
Stallibrass et al. (2002)
Five years later, a randomised controlled trial – the gold standard of clinical research – was published with the same lead author.
It assigned 93 PwP to three different groups: 1) normal treatment 2) normal treatment + 24 AT lessons and 3) normal treatment + massage.
The research concluded that ‘lessons in the Alexander Technique are likely to lead to sustained benefit for people with Parkinson’s disease’. Findings were that:
Regarding everyday activities, following the trial, the AT group performed with significantly less difficulty than the other two groups. Even after 6 months, the comparative improvement was maintained.
Regarding disability, those in the AT group mentioned improvements to aspects such as walking, speech, posture, balance, energy levels, tremor, rigidity and muscle tension.
Regarding emotions, those in the AT group mentioned being less depressed, stressed and panicked, and more positive, hopeful and self-confident.
The authors gave this explanation of why they thought AT was a useful skill for PwP:
Most people acquire the habit of focusing on the direct control of muscular effort in order to stand, sit and move. The Alexander Technique provides a different mental approach, which appears to facilitate the activity of brainstem mechanisms that control the automatic adjustment of postural support. It leads to less effort in moving, probably due to improved balance and reduced overall tension. Hence its effectiveness for Parkinson’s disease, in which symptoms combine to make movement more of an effort.
Stallibrass et al. (2005)
Stallibrass and colleagues followed up their 2002 paper with another study published in 2005. It looked at whether participants had retained the skills they had learnt six months previously. The key finding was that ‘every participant retained some degree of skill’. In summary,
Each of the pupils in the sample was still using skills they had learnt during Alexander technique lessons six months after the course had ended. The scope of application varied greatly, from application in one activity only (walking, breathing, lying in the semi-supine position) to comprehensive use of the Alexander technique as a way of organising their daily lived experience.
Cohen et al. (2015)
Ten years later, scientists published research on what lay behind some of the findings indicated by the previous studies. In other words, how was AT leading to reductions in disability among PwP?
Twenty PwP took part in this study. They were given two sets of instructions to practise: 1) “Lighten Up” instructions relied on AT principles of reducing excess tension while encouraging length, and 2) “Pull Up” instructions relied on popular concepts of effortful posture correction.
The researchers discovered that only the AT-based “Lighten Up” instructions resulted in:
reduced postural sway
reduced axial postural tone
greater modifiability of tone
a smoother centre of pressure trajectory during step initiation, possibly indicating greater movement efficiency
The researchers concluded that AT was likely to be enhancing balance and mobility in PwP by ‘facilitating increased upright postural alignment while decreasing rigidity’.
Cohen et al. (2017)
A common Parkinson’s symptom is ‘freezing of gait’. The researchers in this study showed that freezing of gait in PwP was specifically correlated with poor ‘inhibitory control’.
While the study did not investigate AT directly, researchers have hypothesized that there is overlap between the capacity for inhibitory control and the key AT skill of ‘Inhibition’ (see this article). In fact, Rajal Cohen, the lead author of the paper, has even described Parkinson’s Disease as ‘a kind of opposite of Alexander Technique’ (in this video).
Below is a short video demonstrating how PwP can use AT to overcome freezing of gait (courtesy of The Poise Project):
Gross et al. (2020)
A pilot study was conducted into the impact of an in-person AT group course for PwP. The AT experimental group of ten participants showed improvements which were retained at 3-6 months post-course, whereas the control group did not.
The AT group benefited from significant improvements in posture, as well as self-reported significant improvements in:
freezing of gait
anxiety
dyskinesia
One participant described the effects of the training as follows:
If I clear my mind, go through the steps and get my poise, I can walk across a crowded basement floor without tripping over something. I can pick up an object and carry it.
Gross et al. (2022)
Next, a study was conducted to test whether PwP retained skills they had learnt after participating in an online AT group course.
14 PwP and 12 care partners completed the course. After six months, 6 PwP completed functional assessments, and 8 PwP and 6 care partners completed surveys and interviews. Compared to before taking the course, improvements in the following areas were retained six months later:
physical performance. Improvements were retained in book-lift, penny-pickup, handwriting, simulated eating, transitions and gait stability.
self-report of agency. Both PwP and care partners reported improved physical control. Care partners noted improvements in overall agency and emotional control.
symptom management. PwP and care partners agreed that pain management was even better at 6 months than post-course. PwP reported continued improvement in upright posture, task focus, fine motor, and depression. Care partners reported continued improvement in offperiods, bradykinesia [slowness in movement], shuffling gait, balance, handwriting, vocal volume, swallowing, and fatigue.
The authors of the research concluded:
Alexander technique shows strong potential for long-term symptom-management retention for PWP with increased benefits after 6-7 months in some areas. Large RCTs [Randomised Control Trials] are justified.
Gross et al. (2023)
This pilot study was the first to assess the benefits of AT for the care partners of PwP. Care partners – such as spouses, children, neighbours, and other close connections – often experience emotional stress, loss-of-self (or ‘role engulfment’) and physical injury in their role.
An AT-based in-person course was run in community settings in seven cities in North Carolina (USA); groups met for 90 minutes weekly over 10 weeks.
According to the researchers, the courses were designed to:
counter care partner isolation;
allow peer-to-peer learning in a group setting;
build embodied self-awareness;
remove economic barriers;
teach effective use of calm voice and touch to prompt care receivers;
practise choice-making activities to enhance resilience and agency.
Outcomes were assessed before and after the intervention, and six and 12 months later. Seven of ten measured improvements were maintained at 12 months post-course, these being:
stroop – conflict
emotional self-efficacy
positive affect
fear
emotional distress
mindful awareness
overall self-efficacy
References
Cohen R., Gurfinkel V., Kwak E., Warden A. & Horak F. (2015) Lighten Up: Specific Postural Instructions Affect Axial Rigidity and Step Initiation in Patients With Parkinson’s Disease. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 29(9), 878-888
Cohen R., Nutt J., and Horak F. (2017) Recovery from Multiple APAs Delays Gait Initiation in Parkinson’s Disease. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 11:60.
Gross, M., Cohen R., Lazaro S., Basye M., Achabal A. & Norcia M. (2020) Poised for Parkinson’s’: Retention of Benefits from Alexander Technique Group Course for People Living with Parkinson’s Disease. Research Poster 1432845. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 101(12), e149.
Gross, M., Condie, C., Grieb, J. & Cohen, R. (2022) Poised for Parkinson’s: Retention of Benefits 6-7 Months After Alexander Technique Synchronous Online Group Course. Research Poster 2184372. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 103(12), e150.
Gross, M., Bellingham J., Brisset P. & Cohen R. (2023) ‘Partnering with Poise’: Retention of cognitive, emotional, and physical benefits for care partners of people living with Parkinson’s disease at 6 and 12 months after completion of an in-person Alexander-based group course. 6th World Parkinson Congress, 2023. Barcelona Spain. Abstract #1237.
Stallibrass C. (1997). An evaluation of the Alexander Technique for the management of disability in Parkinson’s disease – a preliminary study. Clinical Rehabilitation 11, 8–12.
Stallibrass, C., Sissons, P., & Chalmers, C. (2002). Randomized controlled trial of the Alexander technique for idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. Clinical Rehabilitation, 16(7), 695–708.
Stallibrass, C., Frank, C., & Wentworth, K. (2005) Retention of skills learnt in Alexander technique lessons: 28 People with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, 9, 150-157.
‘Micropractices’ are brief practices which can be as short as 20 seconds, and which can lower anxiety or stress. They are convenient, accessible and can be practised almost anywhere. An article in Psychology Todayhas even called them ‘the next disruptive innovation in stress and anxiety treatment’.
A recent study of a 20 second micropractice found that it brought about significant improvements in self-compassion, emotional wellbeing and stress reduction when practised on a daily basis. My ‘short version’ of this micropractice is as follows:
Place one hand on your belly and the other on your chest and ask yourself, ‘how can I be a friend to myself in this moment?’
The full version from the study is below:
You’re invited to allow your eyes to close… Bringing to mind a recent mistake, or a failure or something about yourself that has been bothering you lately, or has made you feel unworthy, unloved, or not enough… and notice what arises in your body as you bring this to mind… sending kindness and warmth to yourself by bringing one hand to your belly and the other to your chest with the energy of giving yourself a hug… allow yourself to embrace what arises in your body … and you’re invited to ask yourself ‘how can I be a friend to myself in this moment?’… and when you’re ready you may open your eyes
retrieved from https://osf.io/n3kf9.
To reap the benefits of regular practice, the researchers suggested remembering to do it after brushing your teeth, for example.
Alexander Technique as an ’embodiment micropractice’
There are versions of the Alexander Technique which look a lot like micropractices, and I’ve recently included a lot of them here. Linking the Alexander Technique to the notion of micropractices could be helpful in spreading the appeal of the Technique.
Alexander Technique self-instructions could be termed ‘mind-body micropractices’ or perhaps ’embodiment micropractices’. As with other micropractices, they are definitely accessible to all. Here’s a brilliant example called the ‘Ready List’:
Stop See Breathe Soft & Tall
Stop – Relax the mind. Think or say “Stop”. See – Relax the eyes. Am I seeing? Breathe – Relax the breathing. Am I breathing? Soft & Tall – Relax into being human. Am I balancing?
You can find out about the rationale behind The Ready List on its own website, and about Alexander Technique self-instructions here.
Alexander Technique Awareness Week is 1st to 7th April, and this year it wraps around ‘Sustainable Healthcare Day’ which is on 6th April.
Stress causes a variety of negative effects on our bodies, mood and behaviour. The Alexander Technique can help to manage stress in various ways such as by:
reducing unnecessary muscle tension
improving breathing
improving mental clarity
enhancing sleep
preventing excited fear responses
Scientists have suggested that improvements to postural muscle tone are likely to be behind how the Alexander Technique rebalances our emotions. They give three possible explanations:
adaptable or reduced tension in the chest, abdomen and back leads to deeper, slower breaths, which in turn downregulates the sympathetic (‘fight or flight’) nervous system;
activating postural patterns associated with being calm, alert, and confident facilitates these feelings;
axial motor regions (ie head and torso) are central to the Alexander Technique, and may have a strong influence on the regulation of the adrenal response to stress.
To get a feel for how the Alexander Technique can help you right now, here are some self-directions which you might like to experiment with:
I am not compressing myself My neck and pelvis belong to my spine My bones are sending me up Let my head float on top of my spine
The Alexander Technique community is a broad church and yet there is one thing it can agree on: the importance of ‘Direction’. It is an essential Alexander Technique skill.
The best introduction to FM Alexander’s own use of the term is by Jean Fischer. But this article has a different purpose: to provide a practical guide to Direction for students and practitioners. If you can get your head around what I’m presenting below, you’ll have an amazing (and free) tool at your disposal for improving your quality of life.
This is quite a long post but, if you wish, you can easily jump to sections that most interest you:
Directions are self-instructions for restoring ease, lightness and balance in movement. Here, in no particular order, are three examples of Directions:
1. Let your head float on top of your neck 2. I am not compressing myself 3. Soft and tall
Below is a more formal definition:
Direction is having the wish, the intention, the aspiration, to be going in those directions that are expansive rather than contractive, but the wish must be expressed through muscular release rather than tension and effort.
Nicholls, J. and Carey, S. (1991) p.82.
Directions have their place within the overall structure of the Alexander Technique. This means that, traditionally, a pause to prevent habitual responses (termed ‘Inhibition’) should precede Direction, as in this illustration:
But what about Directions themselves? Recently, some experimental research looked into this by analysing what happened when a group of older adults used Alexander-based self-instructions compared with other kinds of instructions. The ‘short version’ of the Alexander-based instruction was as follows:
Allow your bones to send you up; let you head float on top of your neck.
And the full version was:
Have the idea that you WANT to go up, but you are not going to do it with muscular effort. Instead, let the ground send you up through your bones, and let your head float up on top of your spine. (Remember where we touched you behind the ears when we were setting up the camera system? The top of your spine is right between those points.) Notice that at the same time as you are going up, you can also expand into width.
The researchers discovered that, of the three types of instruction they compared, only the Alexander-based instruction was beneficial, the result being that:
Thinking of upright posture as effortless reduced muscle activation and improved balance, while thinking of upright posture as effortful made balance worse.
The research paper illustrated the three types of instruction given to participants as follows:
The research concluded:
[the results] support the growing consensus that learning to maintain particular intentions with regard to one’s postural state can have widespread benefits. … The results of this study are important for older adults because they directly address a root cause of falling, that is, poor balance … If, as our results suggest, instructions that encourage an effortless upward intention can decrease excessive muscle coactivation and improve balance in older adults, these instructions should be widely integrated into rehabilitation programs [my underline].
Classic Alexander Directions
Various forms of Alexandrian Direction exist. Patrick Macdonald – a first generation teacher who trained with FM Alexander – presented this typical version:
Let the neck be free, To let the head go forward and up, To let the back lengthen and widen.
Other Classic Directions exist for the limbs, but they are of secondary importance. Patrick Macdonald gave his take on the meaning behind the above instructions, and it is worth reading his commentary in full:
Let the neck be free. You will notice that the phrase starts with “let”. This is important. It means that the pupil should avoid stiffening the neck – not that he should do something to free it. I frequently find pupils going through all sorts of contortions in the belief that they are “freeing the neck”. They are usually, in fact, producing an extra stiffening by so doing.
To let the head go forward and up. Notice the word “to”. It joins the first phrase to the second; it is important that the two ideas should not be considered as separate but as continuous, the second acting in response to the first. The word “let” is employed again, for the reason I have already mentioned, to prevent pupils trying to put their heads forward and up in a muscular manner … It is useful to consider the “forward” as an unlocking of the head at the atlanto-occipital joint by refraining from tightening and pulling it backwards in the accustomed way, and the “up” as a tiny extension of the spine, which is achieved following this unlocking. The movement, if any, is, in an experienced pupil, so small as to be hardly a movement at all. It is a directed flow of force or a kind of pulsation, no more than a heart beat.
To let the back lengthen and widen. Again, the words “to” and “let” are used; the first to join the phrases, the second to denote the impropriety of ordinary muscular action in this connection. Lengthening of the back may be described as “allowing the spine to extend itself to its full length”, widening the back as “refraining from hollowing the back in such a way that it is slumped”. I stress again that directions are not a number of separate ideas, but a whole – in Alexander’s well-known phrase, “all together, one after the other”. I amalgamate the two directions (to lengthen and to widen), as these two impulses are so closely associated that it is improper to consider one without the other.
MacDonald, P. (1989) pp.77-9
Direction pitfalls
There is no doubt that ‘Directing’ or ‘sending Directions’ is an unusual skill. In my experience, the fact that there is nothing comparable makes the process hard for students to wrap their thinking around.
Patrick Macdonald’s commentary above already hints at this, with his description of Direction as involving ‘a kind of pulsation, no more than a heart beat’ and his advice against using ‘ordinary muscular action in this connection’.
Therefore, it is really helpful to understand at the outset some of the pitfalls. Here are three of the most common traps people fall into.
Pitfall 1: Confusing Direction with position or movement
When someone begins learning how to Direct, they almost inevitably confuse Direction with either some kind of position, or some kind of movement. But the fact is, Direction occurs within position and movement, and is a separate phenomenon.
To illustrate, consider the following:
Patrick Macdonald again helps us out, giving us an experiment to explore the differences between the three:
Now for a practical exposition, because an ounce of practice is worth a ton of words. I want to explain what I mean by ‘giving directions’. I would emphasize that the following procedure is not important in itself, but only as an aid to understanding. Hold your left forefinger out in front of you. The finger is held, you will probably agree, in a position. Now wiggle the finger about. That, again, you will most probably agree is ordinary movement. Now grasp the left forefinger with the other hand and stretch it gently. This constitutes imparting a lengthening direction to the finger. You will realize that this brings about a different activity in the finger from what happens when it is held in a position, or from when it is put into movement. If you keep on pulling the finger with the other hand you would impart – unless there was some impeding factor – a tendency on the part of the finger to go on stretching itself so that the impulses would continue to flow outwards, as indeed they should, when the finger is left by itself in position. Further, this outward flow should continue even when the finger goes into MM [muscular movement]. To recap: Position, MM and “direction” are three different activities; the third activity – “direction” – should go on inside the other two activities.
Macdonald, P. (ibid.) pp.64-5.
Pitfall 2: Making Directions effortful
Following on from the above, the fact that Direction is not a movement (in the ordinary sense of the word) means that it must not involve muscular effort. And yet, inevitably, on first learning the Alexander Technique, most people try to ‘do’ their Directions.
This doesn’t mean that Direction can’t be specific, focused or – well – directed, but it does mean that Direction is nonetheless only an intention, a wish, an aspiration or a thought.
The Alexander Technique teacher Robert Rickover has come up with a useful exercise to illustrate the amount of effort required in Directing. It goes like this:
Sit down somewhere indoors and look around you to select an everyday object which has no particular significance; for example, it could be an ordinary desk or chair. Now, take a walk around the room and notice the object – sometimes it’ll be in your field of vision, and sometimes not. Now, sitting down again, have a little bit more of an awareness of that object, just a little more than if it hadn’t been mentioned. In other words, elevate it a little bit in your awareness so that, if someone were to ask you a question about it, you’d either know the answer or know exactly where to look to find out. It’s that level of awareness we’re talking about, that level of effort required to think about the object. If you’re doing more efforting than that in using an Alexander Direction, you’re doing too much.
adapted from Rickover, R. (2017)
Pitfall 3: Feeling instead of thinking
The Alexander Technique teacher Missy Vineyard explains this final pitfall with great clarity, and it is worth reading in full. If you understand her words below, you will have a good sense of the rather detached clarity of thought you’ll need for Directing. You’ll see how Direction is refreshing, and quite unlike anything else.
Try this experiment: Silently tell yourself to relax your shoulders. Repeat this instruction to yourself for a minute or two. If you are like most people, your attention will drop downward as you focus your mind on your shoulders – trying to feel them, relax them, and determine if they are becoming relaxed. It is as if we try to shift our mind physically closer to our body in order to pay attention to it. What you have just done is put your mind on feeling instead of thinking. To explain, let me return to the brain. Your brain is like a two-way radio. It has two channels, not one, as an ordinary radio does. Your brain/radio can receive signals (inputs) and it can send signals (outputs) … In short, when you are feeling, you are bringing your attention to information that is coming into your brain via sensory nerves. When you are thinking, you are sending out an instruction to make something happen in yourself. Feeling is a reporting in. Thinking is a command for action … you need to be able to shift your mind’s attention from what is coming in (feeling) to what is going out (thinking). For example, putting your attention on feeling your muscles tightening is not the same thing as thinking that you want your muscles to stop tensing.
‘Thinking from the attic’ Your task is to tell yourself what you want to have happen in your legs without shifting your attention downward to feel. Trust that your mind knows what you mean by these words, and that there is nothing more you have to do. You do not have to put your attention on your legs and try to make the right thing happen. It is like mailing a letter: You go to the mailbox and drop your letter in the slot. Then the postman delivers it – you do not have to deliver the letter. Thinking a mental instruction or thought is similar. You do not have to take your thought of relaxing your legs to its destination – the legs themselves. Remain up in your attic, thinking the instruction. Drop your thought in the mailbox. Trust it will get where it needs to go without further help from you.
Vineyard, M. (2007) pp. 154-8
Is Direction mysterious?
Before we get on to some colourful kinds of Direction to try, let’s consider this idea: is Direction mysterious?
My first response is that Direction is certainly unfamiliar. The fact is, we’re simply not used to thinking or intending in this way. In fact, most people wouldn’t even realise it’s possible, let alone a skill or something beneficial.
In Directing, we are influencing our muscular system, but through a different ‘channel’ to the one used for muscular movement. Instead of focusing on moving in the ordinary way, we are focusing on creating the best conditions for our moving to happen well.
Looked at in this way, you could say that Direction is no more mysterious than ordinary movement because they are both examples of ‘mind over matter’.
If you don’t consider ordinary movement mind over matter, then you might be struck by this passage by the fiction writer Ian McEwan, as I was several years ago. After reading the following, maybe you’ll consider ordinary movement to be no less mysterious than Alexandrian Direction:
She raised one hand and flexed its fingers and wondered, as she had sometimes before, how this thing, this machine for gripping, this fleshy spider on the end of her arm, came to be hers, entirely at her command. Or did it have some little life of its own? She bent her finger and straightened it. The mystery was in the instant before it moved, the dividing moment between not moving and moving, when her intention took effect. It was like a wave breaking. If she could only find herself at the crest, she thought, she might find the secret of herself, that part of her that was really in charge. She brought her forefinger closer to her face and stared at it, urging it to move. It remained still because she was pretending, she was not entirely serious, and because willing it to move, or being about to move it, was not the same as actually moving it. And when she did crook it finally, the action seemed to start in the finger itself, not in some part of her mind. When did it know to move, when did she know to move it? There was no catching herself out. It was either-or. There was no stitching, no seam, and yet she knew that behind the smooth continuous fabric was the real self — was it her soul? — which took the decision to cease pretending, and gave the final command.
McEwan, I. (2001) p.33
So, Direction may be mysterious. However, it is equally important to remind ourselves that Directing is a down-to-earth, practical skill for optimizing how we coordinate ourselves in daily life or in more demanding situations. For many, it is an essential skill for staying out of pain, discomfort or injury.
Part II: Varieties of Direction
What follows is an introduction to some of the more innovative ways that Alexander Technique practitioners have evolved the concept of Direction. For each variety, you’ll find sample Directions in italics at the beginning for you to try out.
Negative Directions
I am not… I am not compressing myself I am not tensing my neck I am not hunching my shoulders etc
These kinds of Direction were first developed by Missy Vineyard (ibid.). Put simply, they are ways of saying ‘no’ to habits which you’d prefer not to have.
Robert Rickover, who has explored these extensively, believes that Negative Directions have advantages over the Classic Directions I outlined in Part I. As he sees it, the problem with the Classic Directions is that ‘most new students don’t know how to “let” their necks be free’ (Rickover (n.d)). In contrast, Negative Directions don’t make unrealistic assumptions because he’s ‘never met a student who wasn’t able to tense their neck, nor a student who didn’t know what “no” means.’
Finally, although they are negative statements, Robert views these Directions as ‘positive affirmations that you want to stop doing things to yourself that are harming you’.
Paradoxical Directions
[While walking] I am not walking [While standing] I am not standing [While sitting] I am not sitting [While swimming] I am not swimming [While chopping vegetables] I am not chopping vegetables [While playing the violin] I am not playing the violin [While giving a speech] I am not giving a speech etc
Although similar to Negative Directions, Paradoxical Directions are a strange class of self-instruction indeed. If you’re like me, though, you might find their slightly comic nature fun to play around with and, who knows, this may even add to their effectiveness. They were again developed by Missy Vineyard (ibid.).
The basic idea behind them is that, if you tell yourself that you’re not actually doing an activity, you are less likely to bring your habitual reactions to the party.
For me, Paradoxical Directions also have echoes of the idea that we act more freely when the self-conscious ego or ‘I’ is less present. This idea crops up in all sorts of contexts, from Tai Chi to Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of ‘flow’. The idea is also there in the phrase often attributed to FM Alexander that ‘the right thing does itself’, and in this example from Eugen Herrigel’s Zen in the Art of Archery:
What stands in your way is that you have a much too willful will. You think that what you do not do yourself does not happen.
Herrigel, E. (1971) p.34
Freedom Directions
I am free I am free to … I am free to walk I am free to feel nervous etc
……… is free My neck is free My hips are free My breathing is free My walking is free etc
Jennifer Roig-Francoli is the originator of so-called ‘Freedom Directions’. A simple observation about them is that their present-tense orientation means that they are not a command to ‘do’ something. This attribute can certainly help students avoid the Direction pitfalls I described in Part I.
Jennifer discussed her Freedom Directions in a podcast with Robert Rickover. The discussion explores the philosophy behind them and their usefulness. Robert contends Freedom Directions are ‘the best we have at the moment’:
RR: It’s a statement of intent. Not a statement that “I’m going to make this happen somehow”. It’s more: “this is what I want and, body-mind, figure out how to bring it about”. I mean, I’m the guy in charge, and I’m delivering the message about what I want, but I’m not suggesting that I am personally going to figure out how to do it. I’m sort of outsourcing that to lower-level systems in my body-mind. JRF: I would go even a step further to say that if I’m thinking “I am free” it’s not only an intent but it is also, in my view, a reality. … You can remember, “I am free to feel tense and tight, and my neck is free to do all this contracting”. In fact, it’s because of my freedom that my brain can send messages to my muscles to contract – it’s because of that freedom that it’s doing that, so I can allow that … We accept the reality of how something is in the moment … So if you’re allowing the neck to be tight and to feel that first, then just by allowing that, it begins to unravel. And I think when the student is aware of that process coming from the reality of our freedom, then it’s just instantaneous.
Rickover, R. (2013a)
Simplified Skeleton
The neck belongs to the spine The shoulders belong to the back The pelvis belongs to the spine
My spine is one
Neck belongs to spine Shoulders belong to the back Hips belong to spine (haiku version by Mastaneh Nazaria)
Pedro de Alcantara first described the ‘Simplified Skeleton’ in his book, Indirect Procedures, noting that ‘The simplified skeleton is a practical way for you to sense yourself in action.’ (de Alcantara, 2013 p.21).
Pedro explained the approach in conversation with Robert Rickover:
I like putting it this way. Ideally, your neck belongs with your spine. The neck’s just an extension of the spine. It’s the visible upper bit of your spine, and most people make it so that about half of the neck belongs to the spine and about half of the neck belongs to the head, creating a very strange and awkward unit of head + half-a-neck and another unit of half-a-neck + a spine. And I think that’s the source of a lot of discomfort and illness. And if you find a way of having your neck wholly with the spine and the head kind of slightly independent from the neck, you have a lot more poise.
So No.1 of the three points of connection within the simplified skeleton is that the neck and the spine belong together and the head is a little bit autonomous relative to the neck; No.2: the back and the shoulders belong together, and the arms are somewhat autonomous, or the arms are extensions of that unit called ‘back and shoulders’; And No.3: back and shoulders belong together, and the legs are somewhat autonomous extensions of the back and pelvis. You have articulations at the hip joints so you can do certain movements of your legs without overly-engaging the pelvis. And if the pelvis stays very friendly with the back; it’s much much better than the pelvis becoming over-friendly with the legs.
So, to make a long story short, the simplified skeleton has three points of connection: the neck and the spine belong together, the back and the shoulders belong together, the back and the pelvis belong together. And that’s it: that’s the simplified skeleton.
So, sometimes the simple thought that your neck is not an independent entity and the neck is just a name for a region of a whole thing that’s integrated, that simple thought can have consequences because suddenly you’re modelling yourself, and your body, and your posture and your movements in a different way. You have a new concept where you say, ‘I actually don’t need to think about a neck, or I don’t need to have a neck, I just have a spine and the spine goes all the way into the inside of my skull, and all the way to bottom of my spine to the coccyx, and it’s one thing, it’s one elastic, directed thing’. And for some people, that simple thought – the spine is one, the spine is not many – can have profound consequences.
Rickover, R. (2013b)
The Ready List
Stop See Breathe Soft & Tall
Stop – Relax the mind. Think or say “Stop”. See – Relax the eyes. Am I seeing? Breathe – Relax the breathing. Am I breathing? Soft & Tall – Relax into being human. Am I balancing?
‘The Ready List’ is the only set of Directions listed here which includes Alexandrian Inhibition – the ‘Stop’ – as part of its formula. It was developed by Sue Merry and Judith Kleinman, and comprises four simple instructions that you give to yourself. It is designed for all ages, but is especially suitable for children, and has many associated resources which can be used in educational settings.
Although based on the Alexander Technique, it has an explicit focus on regulating the autonomic nervous system. It has a dedicated website – thereadylist.com – according to which,
The Ready List helps us to change any unhelpful habitual behaviour in order to balance our nervous system and to bring a sense of peace into our lives. In this way we can experience a state of being in activity that we more usually associate with sitting in meditation.
Spatial Directions
External: Become aware of the space above you, the distance between you and the ceiling or the sky, the space behind you, the distance between you and the wall behind, the space on either side, the distance between you and the walls either side, the space in front of you, a panoramic vision of what is in front and the distance between you and the horizon. Become aware of the ground beneath you.
Internal: Think of the distance between the top of your head and the roof of your mouth; the distance between the front of your eye and the back of your head; the distance between your ears. Now it may be possible to become aware of the whole volume your head takes up in space, its three-dimensionality.
Last but not least, Penny O’Connor’s Spatial Directions were influenced by the ideas of Frank Pierce Jones, David Gorman and Les Fehmi.
With regard to the external Spatial Directions, Penny writes, ‘If it is possible, think of these spatial directions one after the other, all at the same time’. (O’Connor (2016), p.137). And regarding the internal Spatial Directions she writes, ‘You can work through the whole of your body’s dimensions in this manner, adding incrementally to your awareness of self, so that by the end you have become aware of the whole three dimensional space you are taking up from head to toe.’ (ibid., p.138).
One of the best ways to experience the full depth of Spatial Directions is to listen to Penny’s 15 minute audio here.
Penny has clarified the meaning Spatial Directions have for her as follows:
When someone says, ‘Think of your directions’, I think of the space around me. The space around me brings me to the moment, and to a unified field of attention … I have called it my SEA of Consciousness: Self, Environment, Activity, juggling those three attentions until they are one. It is firstly an inhibition of my habitual narrowed thinking and then a direction into widened attention and the Now. I was, I should say, also trained to think of neck free etc, so I cannot say that it is not also associated with it, and comes along beside it, but if I’m spatially aware, if I can take in consciously what I am seeing, hearing, sensing, then the traditional directions seem to happen on their own. It is our birth-right to be tall, wide and gorgeous.
O’Connor, P. (2016) p.136.
Conclusion
So, that’s my whistle-stop tour of the field of Alexandrian Direction. If you have any further varieties of Direction you think should be included, do get in touch.
Bibliography
de Alcantara, P. (2013) Indirect Procedures, Oxford: University Press, 2013.
Herrigel, E (1971) Zen in the Art of Archery. New York: Vintage Books.
Nicholls J., Carey S. (1991) The Alexander Technique: in conversation with John Nicholls and Sean Carey. Brighton: Brighton Alexander Training Centre.
MacDonald, P. (1989) The Alexander Technique: as I see it. Eastbourne: Rahula Books.
McEwan, I. (2001) Atonement. London: Jonathan Cape.
O’Connor, P. (2016) ‘Be Here Now’ in The Congress Papers 2015 pp.135-9. London: STAT Books 2016.
Rickover, R. (2013a) ‘An interesting new development in Alexander Technique directing’ https://bodylearning.buzzsprout.com/382/112493-an-interesting-new-development-in-alexander-technique-directing. Accessed 7 Mar 2024.
Rickover, R. (2013b), ‘The Simplified Skeleton’. https://bodylearning.buzzsprout.com/382/134189-the-simplified-skeleton. Accessed 7 Mar 2024.
Rickover, R. (2017) ‘Lessons in Self Direction – Using the Principles of the Alexander Technique: Lesson 2’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLGX3Lkx38c. Accessed 7 Mar 2024.
Rickover, R. (n.d.) https://www.upwithgravity.net/negative-directions/. Accessed 7 Mar 2024.
Vineyard, M., (2007) How You Stand, How You Move, How You Live: Learning the Alexander Technique to Explore Your Mind-Body Connection and Achieve Self-Mastery. Philadelphia: Da Capo Press.
Almost a million people in the UK are now too sick to work because of back or neck pain, according to a recent Guardian article. This number has apparently increased by 28% in the last four years.
Over the last few weeks, The Guardian newspaper has devoted several articles to the topic, but there has been a fair degree of ‘missing the point’. The elephant in the room – barely acknowledged by these articles – is what modern pain science tells us.
I’ll come to that at the end. But first, let’s see what The Guardian reports have been saying.
Four main reasons for the increase in back and neck pain (according to The Guardian)
The main reasons given were:
change in work patterns. Since the pandemic, more people are working from home. The result is more sedentary behaviour combined often with the wrong home ‘set-up’ (chair, desk, computer etc).
unhealthy lifestyles. There is evidence linking lower back pain and obesity.
people working longer into old age. Older working people are more likely to be living with multiple chronic conditions. In addition, there is now a large number of ‘baby boomers’ who are approaching retirement.
lack of access to treatment. Long NHS waiting lists mean that people are unable to access the help they need. The problem gets worse over time, and more people than ever are going to A&E with neck and back pain.
Five ways to avoid neck and back pain (according to The Guardian)
At the same time as the above, The Guardian published a feature article listing five ways to avoid back pain. These were:
get active. Regular aerobic exercise is ‘probably the best prevention’.
quit smoking. Smoking could itself lead to back and neck pain because it decreases blood flow to the intervertebral discs.
ditch the chair. There is ‘a lot of evidence’ that swapping chairs for a height-adjustable standing desk can reduce back pain among workers.
take care while lifting. Apparently, 300,000 people in the UK experience back pain each year as a result of ‘manual-handling accidents’.
if pain strikes, do not stay in bed. Resuming activity is important because otherwise postural muscles weaken, and this can extend the overall period of disability.
20 ways to treat back pain (according to The Guardian)
And then, a couple of weeks later, The Guardian published another article, listing osteopaths’ views on 20 ways to treat back pain. I won’t list the 20 ways here, but a lot of the emphasis was on aspects such as movement, exercise, working on ‘the core’ and using heat or ice packs.
Missing the point?
As I mentioned at the start, the ‘elephant in the room’ is that little in these articles seems to have been informed by modern pain science.
In recent years, there has been a shift in scientists’ understanding of pain. There is now a recognition that pain is caused by the interplay of biological, psychological and social factors, and that there is not a direct link between physical damage and the experience of pain. This is especially the case in a condition such as low back pain, where pain can persist even when there is no (longer) evidence of tissue damage. This means that to focus solely on the physical – for example with simple stretching or strength-based approaches – is missing the point.
Due to overwhelming evidence, the previous mainstream approach – known as the biomedical model – has been superseded by the biopsychosocial model. The difference between the two is chalk and cheese, and the implications for modern approaches to treatment are huge.
Although The Guardian articles make occasional references to areas such as stress, sleep or mental health, the underlying assumption is that back and neck pain are a ‘physical’ problem and require a ‘physical’ solution.
In contrast, if you want to get up to speed on the implications of modern pain science for back and neck pain – how psychological and social factors are equally as important – you can read my summary of the topic here.
Mari Hodges, pain management therapist and Alexander Technique teacher, wrote recently that ‘many people living with persistent pain have felt unvalidated, unheard and stigmatized in their encounters with western medicine’. She continued:
the complexities of pain have long been misunderstood and ignored in western society, largely due to a division of mind and body that only recently western medicine is beginning to realize is artificial. Our health systems have developed based on this separation of physical and psychological.
I want to bring this excellent in-depth work to a wider audience, and so this blog post is a summary of that article. It’s roughly half the length of the original (where the full list of research citations can also be found).
Introduction
Scientific studies show that the Alexander Technique (AT) helps with various kinds of pain, in particular long-term back and neck pain. But how? This article aims to answer this question in the light of pain science research.
In recent years there has been a shift in the understanding of pain. The previous mainstream approach – known as the biomedical model – assumed a direct link between tissue (physical) damage and pain. This view has been superseded by the biopsychosocial model which instead understands that biological, psychological and social factors interact with lived experience to create a unique pain experience for every individual and every incident.
The Biomedical Model
Though outdated as a model for understanding and addressing pain, the biomedical model is deeply ingrained and makes several assumptions as follows:
pain indicates tissue damage, and so treatment should focus on an underlying physical cause;
more pain means there must be more tissue damage;
when there’s no evidence of tissue damage, pain is not ‘real’ but rather imagined or caused by psychological problems.
In contrast, there is now overwhelming evidence that:
pain can occur without tissue damage (examples include persistent back pain, fibromyalgia and chronic regional pain syndrome);
the degree of tissue damage does not predict the degree of pain (for example, people are often pain-free despite living with disc degeneration, disc hernias or rotator cuff tears);
the brain is involved in the experience of pain.
A Modern Understanding of Pain: ‘Pain as Protection’
Many researchers agree that pain can be best understood as one of the body’s protective systems. While pain promotes a variety of protective behaviours (such as withdrawing a limb, resting or seeking help), protective responses themselves can influence the experience of pain.
These protective responses include sensitisation, motor (movement) changes and psychosocial behaviour.
Sensitization
Sensitization is characterized by magnified responses to stimuli and heightened perception of pain. A sensitized nervous system can perpetuate pain, even when there’s no (longer) evidence of tissue damage. For example, sunburn can increase sensitivity such that a light brushing of the skin causes pain despite lack of bodily harm.
Evidence shows that sensitization can contribute to diverse conditions such as osteoarthritis, back pain, headaches and ‘phantom limb pain’ (following amputation).
Sensitization is a type of plasticity, i.e. a prolonged change to the nervous system. There is some evidence that plasticity itself can maintain or contribute to chronic pain; for example, in the case of changes that occur to attention, inhibitory neural mechanisms and the body schema (the brain’s map of body parts in space).
Motor (movement) disturbances
Pain is also associated with substantial changes to postural muscle activity and movement coordination. For example, in people with chronic neck and back pain there tends to be overactivation of superficial muscles and deactivation of deeper muscles.
Psychosocial factors
Psychological and social factors are closely linked to the experience of pain. For example, there is substantial evidence that:
PTSD and adverse childhood experiences increase the risk of developing chronic pain;
distress, fear, expectations, and beliefs about back pain strongly influence pain intensity;
a hostile work environment, poor sleep, or concurrent health issues can increase sensitivity to pain;
sociodemographic factors such as education level and minority status influence pain;
other people’s responses to pain can influence it.
In short, anything that influences the brain’s evaluation of threat can influence pain.
Novel interventions
Due to the link between psychological experience and pain, the mind is increasingly considered a central tool to address pain. Several approaches to pain now engage individuals’ thinking, in contrast to the passivity of the biomedical model and simple stretching or strength-based approaches.
One novel intervention called ‘cognitive functional therapy’ has led to striking reductions in low back pain. This approach begins by identifying the factors contributing to an individual’s pain (e.g. posture, cognition, emotion, behaviour and lifestyle) and then introduces a tailored education programme. It includes relaxation techniques and other active strategies for change.
Another intervention which has led to some success is ‘graded sensorimotor retraining’ which is designed to change how people think about their body in pain, how they process sensory information and how they move. After learning about pain, individuals engage in activities focusing on proprioception and active movement.
How Might Alexander Technique Reduce Pain?
The Alexander Technique bears similarities to novel interventions such as the above. Notwithstanding the specifics of AT, research would suggest that it is likely to improve pain outcomes by:
being taught by a highly trained teacher;
emphasizing an individualized, empathetic caring relationship;
taking an educational approach combined with movement.
AT teachers educate students about their habitual physical and mental patterns, and the processes involved in changing these. The likely influence of specific aspects of AT on pain are explained below.
Touch
Touch in and of itself has effects which are beneficial for pain; for example, it can suppress pain-related sensory input while promoting reorganization of body representations in the brain, feelings of safety and relaxation, and a positive therapeutic relationship.
AT teachers use touch to sense and invite change in a student’s postural state. This provides sensory feedback which, for example, promotes changes in tension. Such changes in postural state are likely to include changes in the excitability of neural circuits that regulate postural muscle tone. This has been hypothesized to influence pain by:
changing the loading on painful regions;
normalizing sensorimotor function;
reducing protection from pain.
Body-Mind Engagement
AT teachers engage the student’s mind in relation to their body and space, and this is similar to the unified person perspective advocated by leading pain researchers. In particular,
AT teachers may ask the student to notice specific parts of their body without judgment or attempt to change. This kind of accepting attitude has been shown to be associated with positive pain-related outcomes.
AT teachers may cue the student to embody certain qualities of fluidity, support or freedom of a joint etc. There is evidence that promoting embodiment of particular physical characteristics is beneficial for pain.
It is likely that AT teachers are helping the student to engage and normalize the body schema (the brain’s map of one’s body parts in space). This may be similar to interventions which re-engage body regions that have “dropped out” with the presence of pain.
Procedures and Activities
AT lessons often involve activities or procedures, and the way these are performed may be instrumental to the way AT affects pain. For example, AT has been found to reduce the ‘lurch’ forward from sitting to standing, and the smoothness of this movement may influence pain through changed excitability and tissue loading.
Performing functional tasks while thinking about movement integrates multiple senses, and may improve sensorimotor disruptions, proprioception and spatial acuity which are all relevant to pain.
Self-Efficacy, Overcoming Fear Avoidance, and other Psychological Factors
Development of certain cognitive skills can reduce fear and anxiety and contribute to a greater sense of control over pain, all of which are strongly correlated with pain.
Firstly, an increase inself-efficacy (the belief in one’s ability to engage in activities) was found after AT lessons and was linked to reduced neck pain.
Secondly, significant reductions in fear avoidance were found as part of a large study of AT and back pain. Learning not to fear the movement, and disconfirmation of the expectation of pain or injury, have been shown to enhance learning that leads to long-term pain reduction.
Other studies of the AT have found that it increases psychological well-being, optimism and confidence, as well as empowerment and self-care skills. All of these psychological factors are known to positively influence pain.
Attention and Reactivity
AT often involves intentionally redirecting students’ attention and expanding their awareness beyond the site of their pain, and this is known to affect pain processing.
The AT may also be able to decrease overall reactivity, and this could reduce heightened pain sensitivity. There is some evidence that the AT improves executive inhibition, and this regulation of general reactivity may decrease pain sensitivity.
Conclusion
As discussed, it is now understood that there is not a direct relationship between tissue damage and pain (the biomechanical model) and that pain is instead the action of a protective system influenced by biological, psychological and social factors (the biopsychosocial model).
While there is evidence that the AT reduces pain, the mechanisms by which this occurs are currently not well understood. AT shares similarities with many newer interventions for pain, and may have common mechanisms such as:
emphasis on learning;
normalization of sensorimotor function;
improvement of psychological factors.
Moreover, AT is also likely to have other unique mechanisms that affect pain including:
sensorimotor changes related to normalizing muscle tone, neuronal excitability, and tissue loading;
It’s a privilege again to be on the faculty at the European String Teachers Association (ESTA) summer school, this year held at Dean Close School in Cheltenham. Check out their Facebook page for updates on signing up.
I’ll be presenting a broad range of themes for attendees under the heading ‘Seven wonders of wellbeing’.
First of all, we’ll take a deep dive into tackling performance anxiety with the help of the latest research as well as five practical visualisations which can be shared with students. Next, I’ll be guiding participants on how to hone the body map. Simple understandings of how the body works can make a big difference: when the body map is accurate, movement becomes freer and less susceptible to tension and injury.
Then I’ll be looking at how to defeat perfectionism. Perfectionism is bad news since it can lead to anxiety, muscle tension and underperformance. We need to look at what can replace it. Fourthly, I’ll introduce kinematic sequences which are well understood in sports, but not commonly understood among musicians. Learning how well-coordinated movement relies on exquisite timing through our whole musculoskeletal system is empowering.
Finally, we’ll approach the Alexander Technique through the lens of the latest science into how it encourages muscles to work in a way that is adapted to the task at hand.
All in all, it’s going to be an exciting and fun week!
A recent article about the emotional challenges during the Christmas season – and how we tend to revert to our childhood selves – caught my attention. It reminded me of some insightful writing on how the Alexander Technique can give us a new perspective on tricky personal relations. The passage ends with a thought on ‘non-doing’, one of the principles of the Technique:
“There exist plenty of situations that aren’t easy to resolve, and plenty of choices that aren’t easy to make. But without choice, all situations are unresolvable. Non-doing isn’t cynicism or sadism or indifference or hostility or fatalism. Rather, it’s the one thing that brings the possibility of choice into your life – and, therefore, the possibility of resolution and release.”
However, such effects are not so surprising when you consider the central concern of the Technique, which is how the individual as a whole reacts – or does not react – to the stimuli of life. One recent experiment beautifully illustrates how a person’s state of mind and posture are woven together. The experiment found that the severity of a subject’s so-called ‘forward head posture’ was associated with lower mindfulness scores and poorer performance on a measure of inhibitory control known as the ‘Stroop test’.
My quote on non-doing above is from the book The Alexander Technique: A Skill for Life (2nd ed.) by Pedro D’Alcantara, and begins with a discussion of the author’s own challenges in responding to his mother’s smoking habit. The full passage is below, and is a fantastic example of how the Alexander Technique can give us options for both self-care and the care of others which we may not have contemplated before.
I hope you enjoy it, and that it too gives you pause for thought.
My mother had always resisted the family’s attempts to get her to stop smoking. We tried everything: reasoning, pleading, emotional blackmail. After every entreaty, she’d just laugh and light up another cigarette. The onset of her disease made our efforts more insistent but no more efficient.
Little by little, I realized that there was nothing any of us could do to make her give up her habit – in other words, nothing that we could do to change her.
Ultimately, we really can’t know exactly what’s going on in other people’s minds and hearts, including people close to us. My mother had her deep personal reasons to be who she was and how she was. Her cigarettes ‘made sense to her’. And the cigarettes were part of a totality of interlocking parts and elements. There was no guarantee that giving up smoking would, in and of itself, create a completely different and healthy totality.
For a while after I arrived at this understanding. I still wanted to ask her to stop smoking, but I wouldn’t say anything. Finally, almost without noticing it, I altogether stopped wanting to make her change, and I accepted her fully, as she was. From me, she then got no more hectoring; all I gave her was my quiet affection and support.
To some, my detachment in the face of her self-destructive behaviour – my not reacting to it – appeared like indifference, cynicism, or fatalism. ‘Do something!’ indignant friends would beseech me. My mother saw my apparent indifference otherwise, and she once paid me a great compliment: ‘You’re not like the others,’ she said with gratitude. (My indignant friends, I note in passing, behaved towards me in the same way my family had behaved towards my mother, trying to change what could not change.)
There exist plenty of situations that aren’t easy to resolve, and plenty of choices that aren’t easy to make. But without choice, all situations are unresolvable. Non-doing isn’t cynicism or sadism or indifference or hostility or fatalism. Rather, it’s the one thing that brings the possibility of choice into your life – and, therefore, the possibility of resolution and release.
Pedro D’Alcantara, The Alexander Technique: A Skill for Life (2nd ed.) pp.71-2
Manage Consent
Cookies on this website optimize the user experience, and are not used for marketing.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
