Letter to Mr Hayes

Dear Mr. Hayes, It was a pleasant surprise for me to find your letter to the editor in The Alexander Journal (number ll, spring 1991). For me, it is new that criticism as yoors is published by the STAT, or any other satellite of the above, or similar to it. In 1976, I was asked to withdraw from my membership in the STAT, because of criticism, that was too direct and too rude, according to their taste and mental attitude, but, alas, criticism - i t means: being aware of the wrong and "inhibit" it, by the application of the Conscious Control (a corner stone of the Alexander Technique) is alien to those who pretend to be practitioners of the F. M. Alexander Technique. They know already the F.M.A.T. perfectly, they do not make mistakes anymore, they know how to teach, they are right already and always! Genera1ly speaking, I agree with most of the content of your letter. You give a proper description of the prevailing A.T. nowadays, which for me is not the real A.T., but a dummy one. It is some kind of manipulation, which may bring about some benefit, good feeling or well being (for a while), relief of pain, improved health (?), new life (?), etc. But this is not the real F.M.A.T., which is a way, a process within the Timeless - Endless - Measureless. This way-process requires a certain mental attitude (see F.M.A's writings - only his ! and nobody else's), that no one is ready to adapt. They look for the shell, not for the core. I began my training in the Alexander Foundation in March 1960 with Patrick Macdonald and the late Peter Scott, and stayed in the foundation till June l965. I know all of them - the "Old Ruling Gang" and their relations at the "back of the stage". The STAT was born against the will of F.M.. He could foresee the monster, who will grow. Unfortunately, he did not realize, which sort of people surrounded him, and how they misused the energies he projected. The results are projected from your letter to the editor of The Alexander Journal. Now, there are points in your letter, which I would like to deal with, maybe to criticize, or to make some comments and I would be pleased, if you would find it right to answer me. As far as I know Walter Vaughan-Jones, he is just "one of them", who can maybe give you good feeling of "relaxation" and well being, but cannot direct properly the Primary Control. He can, like all of them, chant F.M., but not apply practically the Way, the Process. Their mental attitude is stuck in the habitual state of mind - no real change in the habitual conditions of the use of the self (and not the use of the body - the prevailing conception in the nowadays A.T. circles). One cannot learn the F.M.A.T. by reading. It may satisfy the intellect, that is all. The conception here should be practical and creative, not intellectual, not theoretical. Other books about the A.T., except his own, do not really give even a proper theoretical description of F.M.'s work. I agree with my teacher, Patrick Macdonald's view, that teaching standards are (more than) often unsatisfactory; in 1976, or 77, he stated it in public, in the annual meeting of the STAT. Something is very wrong in the way of training teachers of the F.M.A.T. something is rotten in "The Kingdom of F.M.A.T." and it began with F.M. himself, who failed to choose the right people for his training course. The results are "screaming" around the world; the real F.M.A.T. is deeply buried under the spreading dummy A.T. You are not wrong,when you write that most of the teachers cannot effectively direct (not take) the head forward and away in relation to the spine (not up). But it begins with this, that they cannot produce these conditions - directions in themselves, for themselves. If it would be otherwise, their hands would convey the right "directions" - automatically. No half-half, no compromise! The work on the torso and limbs is not wrong, provided the teacher directs the Primary Control this way, and does not work specifically on these parts. As a matter of fact, such wprk is needed. Many times, this is the way to undo stiff necks. All depends on the proper application of the Alexander Way in the practitioner himself, and it can work only, if there exists in the brain the practical understanding of the creative conception of the F.M.A.T. - as a whole. Most of the teachers act, indeed, as therapists or gurus. They did not give up End-Gaining; they work for results (the sooner, the better); they do not see the Way, the endless-timeless process. They did not leave the habitual "boat". If we do not learn practically what is end-gaining, and be aware of it non-stop, we do not have any chance to follow the way. When we really understand what is end-gaining, with its endless variations and faces, and we manage to "inhibit" it, we are on the way. When we are ready to face our fears in general and understand them and their effect on our reactions to stimuli of daily life, we have the chance to "inhibit" end-gaining. As those, who teach are scared of facing a mirror, they are scared to face themselves as really they are, they cannot deal with the use of the self. Therefore, they deal with the use of the body. It means really - they deal with the functionning of the human machine. No more than this. The teacher does not have to put us wrong in order to teach us. For this, we do not need a teacher of A.T. We are good enough in this subject. The teacher, by applying the conscious control for himself, in himself (conscious control - a state of acute awareness on a general-total basis) helps us to produce this state of mind in ourselves, so we become aware of the wrong and see to "inhibit" it. Otherwise, it is not the F.M.A.T. The schools everywhere - not only in London - are the mirror of their heads. Unfortunately, old F.M. was not aware enough in this respect, and I am afraid, he was not the best of pedagogues. He did not coach properly his students; he left them too much for themselves, without controlling their steps. The result is seen in the way his work is taught nowadays. As once, W.H.M. Carrington told me: "You do it your way I do it my way"; full stop! But there is only the Way - it is not mine, it is not yours, it is not Alexander's Way. He just discovered it, either you follow it or not. No half-half, no compromise. Alexander Schools are the main source of income for those, who run them. They became a business, which is bound to the laws of the world economy. The schools are shaped and framed for the requirements of the dominant end-gainer's society - which is most of humanity. The prevailing A.T. nowadays is adjusted to this society and its genera1 mental attitude. On such ground, the rea1 F.M.A.T. cannot exist'. This is the unfortunate fact, and I am ready to prove it to anybody, who is open for criticism, open to see the wrong in themselves, and not hide behind the paper walls, behind false armour of constitutions, regulations, frames and taboos of societies - organized new reIigion. Those "Little Great Men" with inflated ego pretend to carry the banner of F.M.A.T! See the answer of the editor and other articles in the same Journal and you can decide, whether my conclusion is wrong or not. I would be pleased to get your criticism and comnents. It will be a material for my brain to digest, not to reject. In case, you come to Switzerland, I invite you to come and work with me. Many thanks. Sincerely, Noam Renen PS: This letter expresses my opinion and the way I see the practical and the theoretical aspects of the Alexander Technique nowadays.

Letter to the Editor of "The Alexander Journal"

Dear Editor, I write as one who began lessons on a visit to London in 1982. Having come across Dr. Barlow's book here in Australia, the next step was to find my way, via the phone directory, to 3B Albert Court, having no idea what to expect, and without having met anyone who had heard of the Technique. I stood around in the hall until eventually Dr Barlow himself came out. I caught his attention nicely by saying I'd come from Australia to find out about the Alexander Technique. He delivered me into the hands os Walter Vaughan-Jones a lucky event for me. Three weeks of daily lessons in 1982 at Albert Court have been succeeded by another seventy or so in various parts of the world, in the hands of many teachers, both privately and in training schools. I won't repeat the usual student testimonies of improved health, well being, new life, etc. All these benefits and more, I experimented in full measure, and I devoted much of my life during the next seven years to learning enough of the Technique to be able to look after myself. But in this I feel I have largely failed, hence this correspondence; Frank Pierce Jones made the point that more may be gained from studying the failure than the successes. In 1982, I was a typical tense endgainer, with no serious disabilities; in two half-hour lessons, Walter's tablework, which is brilliant, brought a power of fresh hope to me. From that time on there has been no giving upon the Technique. However, my most presistent efforts, plus a study of all available books have not enabled me to 'relearn how to learn'. This is no cause for sorrow as the Technique has still worked wonders for me, but the experience of the last seven years has formed some conclusions in me regarding the learning and teaching of the Alexander Technique. These, I feel, should be aired. Firstly, I share Patrick MacDonald's view that teaching standards are often unsatisfactory. I am certain, for instance, that many teachers (perhaps most) cannot effectively take the head forward and up. Now I realize that nearly all can do so to some extent, but this, along with inhibition, is the very core of the Technique, and of the twenty-five or so teachers I have experienced, only Mr MacDonald could step up to any pupil and do so without any fooling around. I appreciate how well-meaning and devoted teachers really are, but this inability typically leads to more work being done on the torso and limbs, which generates the feeling of well-being so craved by pupils, but little of the lasting effect that comes from the good working of the primary control. Secondly, we pupils are equally at fault. Teachers must throw responsibility for ourselves upon us, and especially to wean us off depending on the teacher for feelings of well-being. This process should start early: the honest teacher should cull his prospective pupils severely. Should the teacher persist with those who, for the best of reasons perhaps, have little desire to take responsibility for themselves as and when they can, then the teacher must admit to himself that he is acting solely as a therapist. And superb therapy it is too. I suggest that most Alexander teachers today are working mainly as therapists; being unable to get the primary control working quickly and efficiently, teacher and pupil cannot progress past therapy to learned self-reliance. Of course the pupil ussually get what he or she wants, but let us all, teachers and pupils, be honest about it. Even the very best teachers have had a tough time of it with this particular end-gaining individual. What are the obstacles that so impede myself and others? I know that I, for one, tried from day one to feel out everything. Give the direction as rehearsed, then feel out what was happening as a result. Perhaps this is a real dead end. As the old boy said, when you get to the point of giving and order and hoping to God that it won't be carried out, you are making the first step forward. I think that in dealing with hardcore end-gainers like myself, teachers have to use a sneaky sideways approach; once we even think of getting out of the chair we grow fearful of failure, and repeated failure on the chair makes us unteachable; at this point most teachers take refuge in table work. Pupils learn very little on their backs on a table. Did Alexander do this? My plea is that teachers find a way round us by varying the routine. Now Mr Alexander, Mr MacDonald, and other I have not met, could just step up and take someone out of the chair, without the repeated sense of failure. What skilled teachers must do is to put us wrong, and teach us by contrast. The pupil needs to laugh, let go, and succeed, rather than worry, tense and fail. To wind up, I'd like to suggest improvements to the selection of pupils for training schools. Anyone trying to get into the leading London schools knows that he or she needs to keep dropping into the school as a body, taking lessons, and eventually the teacher may give in to this persistent individual and induct same. Distant applicants have little chance. This is wrong. Any self-respecting head of a shool should cull his trainees, just as he should cull individual ppupils. Is a serious effort really being made to maintain or even raise the standards of training? The Technique is rapidly devaluing itself, and it is high time that pupils, the consumers, began to deliver some strong feedback to the hallowed London schools. How many pupils have beenn invited to the biennial conferences? Despite my negative tone, I do wish to thank, with my heart, all those teachers who have done their level best to help me and others. Yours sincerely Denis Hayes, Sidney, Australia, February 1990

From the Editor

Dear Mr Hayes, Thank you for taking the trouble to express your concerns so articulately. You raise some interesting questions but I cannot help feeling that behind them all is a wish to find a supreme authority, or at least an omniscient teacher. Take for example, your concept of culling. This would imply a degree of wisdom which, I hope, no sincere teacher would lay claim to. It is an experience commonly shared by teachers that at the moment when a particular pupil seems beyond hope, he or she takes a step forward. It is well known, too, among those who train teachers that the students of whom you have great expectations often fail to take up a teaching career, while those whose main interest in training is to have a more intensive experience of the Technique turn out to be very good teachers. This shows us how important it is to be without expectations, but if one can reach that enlightened state, culling becomes an imposibility. One's judgement is always being upset by the human capacity for change. Patrick Macdonald is known to be gifted thorugh his hands in a way that is, perhaps, unique to him. It seems to me that the benefit you received from your lessons with him is mitigated by your memory of the experience, which comes between you and what you could be experiencing from your unsuspecting teachers. One after the other they fail to come up to your memory of Mr Macdonald taking your head forward and up. Is this fair to either Mr. Macdonald or his unwitting successors and is it of any benefit to you? It is always useful to go back to Alexander's own situation when trying to understand the role of the teacher. If Alexander could find the solutions to his problems in a thought process and rely for feedback on what he saw in the mirror, are the hands of the teacher so important? Of course they hasten the working of the primary control and are, incidentally very therapeutic, but is not the part they play in a lesson less important than the process of inhibition and direction if you see the Technique as a means to improved functioning in everyday life. With regard to therapy I share your concern that in many lessons it may be the dominant element (see my editorial in the last issue) but I would not want to eliminate it. If we agree that the self is divided, which part is it that gets us to our lessons and keeps us coming back for more? I suspect that the recollection of a sense of well being, although it is not the Technique, is as important as the principles which are its basis, in leading us to the point where we can appreciate the validity of the Technique. What you say about training schools is inaccurate. In Britain there are now as many courses outside London as there are in London and the method of gaining entry by becoming a “body” applies to a minority. The improvement of training standards is a constant concern of the STAT council but these are quantitative, i.e. the length of teaching experience of the course director, the time required for training, the ratio of pupils to teachers, etc. So far the ability to find criteria for quality has eluded us. Finally I wonder what is the basis for your sense of failure when you so obviously seem to have benefited from the Technique. I suspect it is because you believe that by now you should have become free of end gaining. When you have achieved this, and when I have too, perhaps we will meet in heaven. Yours sincerely, Adam Nott, Pulborough, West Sussex.