When I tell people that I am an Alexander Technique teacher, they usually try to understand my work by comparing it to things that they know such as chiropractic, massage, yoga, Feldenkrais, and the like.
I usually respond that Alexander Technique is like nothing else. It is sui generis, its own distinct entity, but sometimes that’s not worth the trouble.
So even though I don’t think Alexander is alternative medicine or like a massage, if my partner in the conversation does think that, I’ll often roll with it rather than dispute it.
The table turn is a part of most Alexander lessons. It involves the student lying on a table while the teacher gently brings his awareness to muscular holding patterns and helps the student release them, returning to his length and width. This can feel and look like a massage. So even though I think of the table turn as an opportunity for psycho-physical re-education, I understand that most people who’ve experienced it will look at it as an opportunity to relax and to feel good.
The way I see my work and the world does not always have to be imposed on others.
Alexander Technique teacher emails me:
Hey Luke,
Apropos your current blog posting:
Here’s the THEORETICAL difference between “The Alexander Technique” and massage, chiropractic, etc. The latter are passive treatments wherein the practicioners manipulate the body into a state of relief, but wherein the clients/patients are not provided with user-friendly and practical information that would enable them to 1) prevent the conditions that produced the problem in the first place and 2) effectively reverse or mitigate those conditions if and when they do arise. There is no effective and practical self-help component that is communicated in massage, chiropractic, etc.
What is supposed to distinguish the Alexander Technique from these other modalities is that the client/student/patient is supposed to be gaining not just the relief, but also the means whereby the relief can be independently achieved without the constant need to depend on intervention of the practicioners.
It’s an important distinction and one that appeals to some people, but a surprising percentage of people really just want the treatment, not the responsibility and the education, and they actually prefer to have to come back time and time again for the passive treatment. They can’t and/or won’t embrace the notion that they could actually effect a positive change on their own.
