By Ron Dennis
At its 2009 Annual General Meeting, the American Society for the Alexander Technique concluded a three-year process in adopting a new mission statement: “The AmSAT Mission: To establish the Alexander Technique as a basic and recognized resource for health, productivity, and well-being.” At the same time an Ad Hoc Committee was authorized for the purpose of investigating a brief explanatory phrase characterizing the Technique, either within the mission statement or elsewhere.
With the creation of the Ad Hoc Committee at AGM 2009 comes to the fore the question of whether an explanatory phrase should be included in our mission statement and, if so, what such a phrase should be. After three years of active thought and research, my opinion is that the mission statement gains strength by such inclusion, and that the phrase should be “postural education.” Yet I realize, judging from the incredulous reactions I got when running it by some colleagues at AGM, that this language will be initially resisted because it is perceived as too limiting and misleading for the Technique’s true scope. At first blush this objection seems valid enough, but there also can be little doubt that “postural education” in its various aspects—musculoskeletal, respiratory, vocal—is the principal reason that people come for lessons, and further, that this phrase communicates broadly to delineate our professional expertise across several audiences—general, medical, academic, artistic. Thus, in this article I will argue that rather than rejecting it as too narrow, we instead expand our own view of “postural education,” so as not to squander this powerful communicative concept.
I begin with the easier word “education,” which seems already generally accepted in our community. Alexander, however, consistently spoke of “re-education,” and there are those who think this usage should be respected and retained. But, in terms of actual meaning, “re-education” seems faulty. For if “education” (as opposed to “learning”) implies the intentional and systematic inculcation of broadly adaptive understandings and behaviors, and if virtually no one has been so educated in their habits of use “BA” (Before Alexander), then it follows that pursuing the Technique later in life is distinctly an educational and not re-educational process.
Regarding “postural,” my argument relies on two sources, the first an obscure article (though one discussed at length by Raymond Dart in “The Attainment of Poise”) by Beckett Howorth, M.D. of New York, from the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1946, and the second from the massive Neurophysiology of Postural Mechanisms of Tristan D. M. Roberts, a world-class physiologist of Glasgow, already somewhat known in Alexandrian circles mainly via Walter Carrington and associates.
The title of Howorth’s article, “Dynamic Posture,” is revealing, the first paragraph meriting full quotation as to his central theme:
Posture has long been thought of in terms of standing and sitting, and correct posture as the erect position assumed when one is under inspection, but posture should really be considered as the sum total of the positions and movements of the body throughout the day and throughout life [my italics]. It should include not only the fundamental static positions in lying, sitting and standing, and the variation of these positions but also the dynamic postures of the body in motion or in action, for it is here that posture becomes most important and most effective [my italics]. Posture has a direct relation to the comfort, mechanical efficiency and physiologic functioning of the individual.
Here and throughout is a conception very close to that of Alexandrian Use, though Howorth’s analysis of dynamic posture, conveyed partially through simple line drawings illustrative of poor and good posture in both static and dynamic modes, seems primitive in comparison with that of Alexander, who understood and exploited the unifying principle of Length. But my purpose here really isn’t to compare the two but to point out that “dynamic posture” is a conception allowing us vitally to broaden our own view in this area.
Although Roberts’ work is gigantic in comparison with Howorth’s, they are alike in providing the information requisite to our present need in their first paragraph. Here then is Roberts:
A movement may be thought of as a change in posture. Alternatively, one might be tempted to regard the voluntary movements of the hands in man as something different from the posture of the rest of the body, so that ‘posture’ and ‘movement’ could be dealt with separately. However, even such small movements of the fingers as occur in writing, commonly involve adjustments in the activity of the muscles of the arm, and often there are accompanying head movements also as the eyes follow the task in hand. These adjustments of the head and arms alter the disposition of the weight of the body in relation to the supports, so that muscles in many different parts of the body become involved, as, for example, in the other arm, or in the legs and trunk. All this background activity needs to be accurately co-ordinated for the successful performance of the desired movement of the fingers. There is no difficulty in regarding the background activity as ‘postural’ [my italics]. Accordingly, because this background activity is essential to the successful performance of the voluntary movement itself and has to be co-ordinated with it, there are advantages in treating the whole process as a unity [my italics].
What a magnificent statement of Alexander’s conception of Use! And to be sure, in our mission statement, we would prefer to proclaim “the Alexander Technique of Use Education”! Alas, because the concept of Use in our sense is unknown to those with whom we want and need to communicate, it just isn’t possible.
But fortunately, in light of the foregoing and in the security of our own heightened understanding, it is possible for us confidently to speak, to those who would hear, of “postural education.” Surely, when they come, our students can and will be led to the fuller meaning—the unique heritage of our work—in this phrase.
I close with a question I would have asked at AGM had the opportunity arisen: How many of us are aware of Posture-Based Chiropractic? I wasn’t at all until recently, when, doing some Web research into postural analysis software, I found that several such programs were being used by chiropractors for purposes of patient screening and recruitment. Now, I do hope that we as Alexander teachers know that posture, however we define or refine the concept, is our field of expertise, and that we also know, or should, that the chiropractic profession has never been shy about promoting itself. Thus, lest we slumber too long before clearly staking out our professional claim, I ask you to hear anew that historic cry, now directed squarely at us, “The Chiropractors are coming, the Chiropractors are coming”!