According to Walter Carrington’s diary*, FM abandoned the use of ‘free neck’, as did my favourite teacher Marjorie Barstow. A ‘free neck’ is a state, a condition. Instead, Marj & FM talked in terms of movement, not states. FM invented “Head goes forward and up so that… etc.” Marj used to say: “It’s the delicacy of the movement that gives you your release.”

What’s clear though, is that both of them focus first on an expanding intrinsic movement at the level of the head and spine - a tiny change with cascading consequences. FM discovered that how he used this head/spinal core profoundly influenced his voice and well-being. 

Scientists refer to this intrinsic movement by several names, but generally speaking - “Postural Support System” - is a safe description in the world of neuroscience.

But what do we call Alexander’s Discovery?

I am currently participating in Tim Cacciatore and Patrick Johnson’s Science of AT course – and they kick it off with a description of 3 movement systems: Postural Support, Voluntary Movement and Balance. 

It’s an elegantly simple start to a profoundly moving course.

One quibble I have is that Tim & Patrick keep referring to Alexander Technique as the goal – as in “AT trained subjects” and “AT effects” – they use this kind of language to describe what we accomplish as teachers.

I’ve asked them if they could give me an operational definition of the “Alexander Technique” for scientific research. Kindly they did - but I believe their replies meander too far in too many directions to be helpful to scientists.

What’s needed is something concise and clear to understand.

It is by no means a simple task!

The first thing to recognise – I believe – is that the “Alexander Technique” is not what FM discovered. Alexander didn’t discover inhibition or direction or even faulty sensory perception. He wasn’t the first to talk about psycho-physical unity or end-gaining. These concepts have been known since Buddha’s time, most likely before that. They appear everywhere, in lots of different ‘techniques’.

They are methods FM used to unravel and then apply his discovery.

“Alexander Technique” - as most people understand it today - is what FM developed to communicate what he discovered. For example, back in 1894 when FM started teaching others, he did not use his hands - yet he already understood what he wanted to communicate. 

We are more likely to agree on what Alexander discovered, than we are to agree on a definition of the Alexander Technique!

What did he discover?

As a teacher, you want to describe WHAT you want to do (discovery) – rather than HOW you want to do it (technique).

How about something simple like “optimising head/spinal movements in the postural support system”? 

Of the teachers I know, all pay attention – directly and indirectly - to this head/spinal relationship. This gives us a commonality, a place of agreement. I would even go so far as to argue that if a teacher is not concerned about head/spinal relationships at some level – they don’t belong in our profession!

I also believe that a vital part of this head/spinal coordination is its relativity to adjacent structures and NOT its relativity to the surrounding environment. 

This idea is more important than it sounds.

It implies that you can be hanging upsidedown, and the relativity of this postural support movement does not change. You can be spinning around a bar in the Olympics, and this movement relativity is the same as when upright and standing. You can be an actor performing a hunchbacked King Richard III, and the relativity of your postural support is also the same as the Olympic athlete spinning around the bar. Maybe you could call it an intrinsic movement? Of course, this relativity can and does change, but either towards optimisation or deoptimisation.

FM named his fourth book after this integrating/disintegrating phenomenon – The Universal Constant in Living.

Going back again to this ongoing reference in Tim and Patrick’s course to “AT” - why would neuroscientists care about the “Alexander Technique”?

The thing about ‘technique’ is that it is highly personalised. Not only between different lineages - think Macdonald, Carrington, Barstow - but even amongst the teachers within each lineage. There is nothing exact about technique – and neither should there be.

Technique needs to be fluid, to change with the times and the person. You want your Alexander (teaching) technique to evolve, to develop. Ergo -  FM didn’t use his hands; then he did!

Defining the “Alexander Technique” is like trying to catch water in your hands - you’re doomed from the start!

However, defining “Alexander’s Discovery” - or discoveries - is a realistic proposition. It is something our profession can get behind and work on together.

How would you define Alexander’s discovery? Or discoveries?

I’d love to know…