Use – a scientific concept.

A working understanding of ‘use’ is something anybody with an interest in Alexander Technique has to acquire. A ‘working understanding’ involves practice and ability to employ oneself purposefully, and skilfully in any activity. Indeed ‘practice,’ ‘employment,’ ‘skill,’ ‘purpose,’ as well as ‘habit’ provide the etymological roots for ‘use,’ which is the founding abstraction of Alexander’s work.

That ‘use’ is foundational for Alexander work should be clear to any one, that it is an abstraction is sometimes missed, with ‘use’ being taken as something concrete. Where use is taken concretely it becomes common to accuse people with no knowledge of Alexander’s work of misusing themselves. This I think is a mistake on a number of levels, foremost of which is that the practical problem for many people is that they have no concept of using themselves at all. ‘Use’ is how Alexander began to analyse his own actions and how he analysed the actions of his pupils. ‘Use’ is therefore the unit of analysis of Alexander work. To develop a working concept of use, a person has to abstract from his or her own experience - something practical that works.

Doing so they have to abstract the ‘similarity of the difference,’ to borrow a phrase from David Bohm, that the use of themselves can actually make to their lives and the difficulties that they are experiencing. In doing this, ‘use’ comes to explain what has happened and what is happening.

‘Use’ therefore elucidates the subject matter of Alexander’s work, as well as providing the explanatory power and the unit of analysis. These three elements together, are what the great Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky, saw as being necessary for the methodological grounding of a scientific discipline. Which is how John Dewey characterised Alexander’s work. It is a scientific discipline for each person that seeks to learn it, like Alexander, to borrow a phrase, this time from Kelly who was inspired by Dewey they are ‘personal scientists.’ 

To view people as ‘personal scientists’ is to recognise the importance of intentionality, of wishing and willing – something Walter Carrington in his published talks stressed as being necessary for success in Alexander work. 

To talk about being a ‘personal scientist’ here is to follow Dewey in ‘Human Nature and Conduct’ in saying that while we rely on habit we must also be able to use our intelligence to review habits and change behaviour as necessary.

Which is very much how Alexander came to see things. The difference between Dewey and Alexander being, as the former, I think would have admitted, is that the Alexander Technique provides the practical way of changing things, turning them around.