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

Curiosity Recaptured

A few years ago, before blogging became prominent,  Mornum Time Press published a book of short essays centred on people's experience of the Alexander Technique -AT. I am not sure whether Jerry Sontag, who edited the book, came up with the title or someone else did, but whoever it was, in choosing 'Curiosity Recaptured', they chose well. For 'Curiosity Recaptured' says something about an attitude to life and to others ,that we can consciously choose, whatever life throws at us. It allows us not just to be curious but to wonder.

I was reminded of the book today, during a conversation with an senior psychotherapist about how they see their work. They described their work with couples, as helping people to make the most conscious adult choices possible, through being curious about the other. It was a nice simple explanation of where dialogue begins, where what Kelly called sociality starts.

Sociality is something that distinguished personal construct psychology back in the 50's. Now psychologists and other psychotherapists are catching up, as they talk about theory of mind and mentalization. Their contributions are all illuminating and helpful but lack something of the clarity of Kelly was getting at. Namely, that in order to play a role with regard to somebody, it is helpful to be able to predict them by being able to 'stand in their shoes' so to speak. The extent to which we can do this helps determines the type of role that we can play.

At a very simple level, this occurs every day while driving or walking along the pavement. Sometimes it goes wrong, as today when I encountered someone walking towards me. We both did that dance that sometimes occurs, with each person trying to step one way and then the other. In this case, our anticipations went astray, we both went the same way and collided. Thankfully this is rare, particularly when driving!

In work and at home we play more complex roles and have to navigate not just relationships with one other, but amongst groups. We need to make sense not just of the individual people involved but of the multiple relationships that exist between people, as well as the relationships horizontal and vertical that exist between the group and the outside world.

Personal Construct Psychology - PCP has some lovely ways of working with these that have been developed by Harry Proctor in the form of Perceiver Element Grids, PEG’s for short. I have used them with both therapy clients and pupils to help them think about the various relationships in their families and most importantly, help them suspend, a PCP word, or inhibit an AT word, old constructs, a PCP word, or conceptions, an AT word.

Whichever words one chooses, whatever theory one starts with, both refer to the same ability of stopping, looking and beginning to see the situation a fresh - as I blogged about last week. It is always a matter of finding our sense of wonder, our sense of curiosity, possibility, no matter what assails, no matter how troublesome a situation or a relationship is. As it is the freshness of being present, that presents the future with new horizons, new vistas, ways forward, whether together or apart.

Freedom For Living

A New Year and a new beginning, and the New Year resolution for this blog is to find video clips of people, other than Fred Astaire, who have what, Alexander would have called good use. So expect clips of various actor’s and sports people who have had Alexander Lessons such as Judi Dench, William Hurt, Helena Bonham Carter, Sebastian Coe, Greg Chappell and Mathew Pinsent. Today, there is a clip great Don Bradman, someone who never had Alexander lessons but whose use, Alexander very much admired. He like Astaire, in his chosen field exemplifies good use through his own technique.

Good use, or if you like, good co-ordination in physical activities, is always founded on the principles of poise and balance, which no particular method, technique or activity has a patent on. Alexander himself worked out the principles in his chosen field of using his voice as an actor. What makes him different from people who have worked out the principles with regard to dance, rowing, horse riding, fencing or martial arts, was his realisation that it was possible to be aware of his use in everything he did and to gain a conscious control of himself.

Alexander writings about conscious control are somewhat inaccessible to a modern audience for example, when he writes about conscious control as being ‘Man’s Supreme Inheritance’ – the title of his first book. Yet, in his last book ‘The Universal Constant in Living’, another somewhat inaccessible title, Alexander writes about his work as a practical method for changing behaviour and concludes about the importance of having ‘freedom in thought and action.’

‘Freedom in thought and action’ implies poise, balance and true relaxation, not the state of collapse that people often mistake for relaxation. ‘Freedom in thought and action’ also implies the ability to choose how we go about doing things, the attitudes we take to situations, events, others and ourselves. These are all deeply important if conscious control is to be achieved in its fullest sense. The freedom each person seeks for the most part depends on what is important to them and their individual life histories. For people who seek mastery of a particular activity like the sportsmen and actors named above, it is about both a freedom that helps prevent injury and improves performance.

For my pupils this week, it has been the ability to put one’s own coat on, or to run for the bus without pain injury, simple things yes, but simple things that if you cannot do, leave you with a reducing quality of life and often a narrowing sphere of activity and enjoyment. With other pupils and clients it is a freedom from past behaviours and habits formed in their earliest years, that stop them from being free to be themselves with others. Freedom is always important. The freedom to be, is what makes life worth living and allows people to transcend the most difficult of situations and circumstances – Alexander Technique and PCP are both different ways for seeking the same path and end of a better life, squarely and fairly faced.

Psychotherapy, Psycho-therapy and Alexander Technique

Etymology is a favourite pastime, the root of words giving clues not just to forgotten meanings but often to a vital world hidden behind a veil of socialisation and habit. So it is with psychotherapy, a word increasingly professionalised, medicalised and placed at the service of the government and the market economy. I got to thinking about the roots of psychotherapy and all the work I do as an Alexander Technique teacher and professional psychotherapist, thanks to an recent, excellent article by Guy Dargert in the The Psychotherapist. The two root words psyche and therapy point to a specific domain and the act of ministering to it. Dargert locates the domain of ‘psyche’ in the myth of Psyche and the necessity of her journey from a ‘charmed but ultimately unsatisfying life’, where ‘all her wishes were effortlessly fulfilled’, to one where she has faced the contingency of life, the limits of human endeavour and the inevitability of death. Such a journey marks our way to maturity, a therapist is simply one who attends to the possibilities afforded in such a journey, who perhaps may play the role of mentor. To play the role of mentor is, as Dargert points out, to enter the world of ‘menos’, a word with which the Greeks combined for ‘mind’ and ‘spirit’ – a ‘mentor’ being a person who brings an ‘overview’, ‘a higher perspective’ and ‘clear thinking’ to troubled minds. For Dargert such a person might be a ‘true ‘mental health practitioner’’.
To talk of ‘spirit’ is to talk of what is vital, what is animating, and this is usually associated with breathing, which is another meaning of ‘psyche’ that Dargert notes. A psychotherapist would be a person who minsters both to the journey of Psyche and would attend to the process of breathing. In doing so they might adopt the role of mentor providing oversight and clarity, inviting a person onwards to where they can stand calmly in the face of the unknown – which is an aim of the Alexander Technique. It is often forgot that Alexander thought of his work as ‘psycho-therapy’, but it is not surprising when you think of his emphasis on breathing. Breathing not just for its own sake but as a necessity for forming ‘satisfactory conceptions of new or unfamiliar ideas or experiences.’ In this Alexander Technique is a practical way of learning to face ones difficulties, to follow the journey of Psyche, to become one’s own mentor, to become whole in the face of uncertainty and the unknown, to dream, to live a life, and to feel alive. To feel alive is as, good a measure of outcome, as any in psychotherapy. George Kelly recognised this and while his Personal Construct Psychology might focus more on ‘menos’, deep within it is a recognition of Psyche, the need for transition, the need to reconstrue, the need to dream - through what he called loosening, the need to live by what he called tightening, into experiment and action.

First Moves

First moves in a situation are often missed in the daily milieu, they are rarely formally announced as in a game of chess, rather they echo into the future sounding loud or soft depending on what they have to say. Their significance permeates our actions determining how we respond, how we experience ourselves and our actions. First moves are the set up for what might follow and arise themselves out of our understanding, our own anticipation of a situation and the possibilities or impossibilities that it holds for us. First moves rest, as in chess, not just on our formal understanding but on our tacit understanding of how things are. We start making them in the womb - we are a form of motion, alive. George Kelly used the idea that we are a form of motion to ground Personal Construct Psychology, while Alexander investigated his habitual patterns of movement to develop the Alexander Technique. Common to both is the recognition that people are not just alive, but making choices, choices which have implications, implications they are not often aware of in the way they move, turn, what they attend to, what they make sense of. Alexander developed a way of helping people become more aware of the implications of their own choices at a micro level of action, which highlights how thought is movement and how movement is thought. Kelly put it this way that ‘behaviour is an experiment’ whether you are shifting your weight to protect a sore foot or knee or whether you take up a new activity or whether you ask someone out for the first time. There is always a theory in the movement of asking, in the shifting of the weight whether it is fully articulated or not. It’s what there in the movement, the first move at the beginning and if we can learn to see it, we can change it and experiment with something else, whether its learning the Alexander Technique, taking up painting or seeing somebody else’s viewpoint for the first time. To see somebody else’s view point, to ‘stand in their shoes’, another Kelly quote, is the first step to building a better set of relationships, dialoguing with them and perhaps building a better world if not for all at least for ourselves. Perhaps ultimately this is the only first move worth exploring, seeing other people and learning to be with them.