Stand Up Straight Now!

If you felt yourself stiffen to the above command then you are almost certainly not alone. It is most people’s first and un-thought out reaction to being asked to stand up straight. The resultant posture involves a fixing and holding of the breath. It was even cultivated for a while as a healthy posture in schools and of course the classic sergeant major pose with head pulled back, chest puffed out is an exaggerated form of it. The fact that it is not healthy, in interfering with relaxed respiration and placing undue strain on the back, was missed until Alexander came along. His work was in part responsible for these sort of exercises disappearing and some of the worst exercises of army drill stopping in the early twentieth century.

However, you just cannot keep a bad idea down as it were, and nearly a century later the idea that we should practice standing up and sitting up straight, as a way of cultivating will power and control is back. It is being promoted by Professor Roy Baumeister and my attention was drawn to his work, through an interesting post on Alexander Technique teacher Jennifer Mackerras' blog.

Now the problem with simply asking someone to stand up straight is that it assumes that they know how to do it. Yet if they did, you would expect not to have to tell them, they just would stand well. It is a point made by John Dewey* in elaborating a conversation with Alexander. Alexander having pointed out to him that people, in seeking to make any change, including one as simple as changing how they stand, believe they merely have to will it and it will happen.

This for Alexander, according to Dewey, is merely a ‘superstition', a belief ‘on a par with primitive magic in its neglect of attention to the means which are involved in reaching an end.’ What is important is an ‘intelligent inquiry to discover means which will produce a desired result, and intelligent intervention to procure the means.’

Without the enquiry into how we might change how we stand, we are most likely, to quote Dewey again, to end up ‘standing differently, but only a different kind of badly.’ This Dewey expands on, to make a more general point that an act comes before the thought, that a habit must be established before we can ‘evoke a thought at will.’

These thoughts of Dewey for me, connect Alexander to George Kelly and his Psychology of Personal Constructs. Kelly was hugely influenced by Dewey and, in his insistence that ‘behaviour is the experiment’, one can see a direct link between the foregoing and his evolution of fixed role therapy. A link that is re-enforced by something else Alexander said, that Dewey reported, namely that we are not simply talking about ‘control of the body’, but the ‘control of the mind and character’. All of these rely on ‘intelligently controlled habit’ and that must be the aim of Alexander lessons or any kind of therapy, such as Personal Construct Psychology, which takes people as active creators of their own lives.

*Dewey,J. (2008) The Middle Works, 1899-1924 ,Volume 14:1922, Human Nature and Conduct . Carbondale:Southern Illinois University Press p23-25

Cutting the Bungee Cord

Despondency tends to descend on people who, in trying to change, repeatedly experience failure, finding themselves jerked back to where they started, just at that point when success seemed to be within reach or even accomplished. It is like trying to change with a bungee rope tied to your back which becomes taut at the last moment, pulling yourself back to where you started - change becomes a Sisyphean task. Each day a person seems condemned to start again, only to be frustrated. It is a familiar experience for many and is often evidence of failure to really stop and find a way forward.

Both Alexander and Kelly wrote about this phenomena and using different language both suggested solutions that were similar and pertinent to whoever finds themselves experiencing this sort of difficulty. As is often the case, it is helpful to approach such difficulties not just from one standpoint but two or more and that is what I hope to do today.

For Alexander, the failure lies in what he called 'end-gaining', in not identifying the real cause of our difficulties, which lay for him in relying on what he called 'subconscious guidance and control.' Rather, we identify a specific fault and tend to try and correct it directly, so a problem with a limb is seen as just that, and not a problem stemming from the overall use of ourselves that is best corrected by aiming for a better co-ordination of the whole. For Alexander, the need to stop and think, to reconstrue is an embodied matter, best done through releasing one's breathing, freeing oneself for a wide range of possible actions, actions that in themselves depend on new conceptions of what is possible, conceptions that recognise situations for what they are, which break our dependence on old habits and cut the cord that binds us to our past. What Kelly adds to this comes with the formal idea of a construct being based on a dichotomy, a contrast, where we like to experience ourselves on one side of the distinction being made. Constructs as contrasts, are highly personal, borrowed and evolved by each person for their individual ends. Meanings are seen as personal, rather than dictionary definitions formally imposed. So, that for one person the choice at work might be to pull down and be a 'kindly' person rather than a 'efficient’ one, where attempts at ‘efficiency’ are always in the end trumped by the need to be ‘kind’. This might happen because being 'kind' or 'nice' is ultimately a way of attempting to control the person’s anxiety in the face of the unknown demands of ‘efficiency’. Kelly called this kind of attempt at change ‘slot rattling’ and like Alexander saw it is an ineffective sort of change, that is better replaced by controlled elaboration and experimentation. In this case the link between being ‘kindly’ and ‘efficient’ might usefully be broken and seen not as an ‘either/or’ but possibly as an ‘and’, subsumed underneath a new construct for change – that of ‘confidence in the face of the unknown’. This involves the ability to stand and face the future, to see what possibilities hope offers us. It is the pre-requisite for change that Alexander always brings us back to and Kelly invites us to adventurously elaborate by cutting the cord to our past failures and seeking the future.