This book presents 40 journal articles, chapters, letters, and papers that Dr. Barlow wrote between 1942 and 1982. Although some of Barlow's ideas are outlined in his popular 1973 book, The Alexander Technique, this collection includes many interesting tidbits, such as his 1950 letters to the British Medical Journal summarizing the results of F.M. Alexander's successful libel suit against the South African government and his 1974 letters to New Scientist defending Nikolaas Tinbergen's Nobel Prize acceptance speech about the Alexander Technique. It also includes a fair amount of repetition, both in the text and in the images of postural alignment before and after lessons.
The chronological arrangement of the material follows the evolution of the author's thoughts about the Alexander Technique from age 27 to age 67. As one might expect, the young Dr. Barlow is full of idealism and big claims for the Technique, like this one from 1945: 'During the past 50 years he [Alexander] has probably come nearer than any other living man to evolving the practical road which we must follow if we are to survive at a higher level than that of the jungle.' (page 5) In later years, Dr. Barlow is still clearly dedicated to the Alexander Technique, but he is also aware of the dangers of overstatement. For example, in a letter to The Lancet in 1955, he writes: 'I should be the last to deny that the Alexander Technique...needs to be utilized by the medical profession; but I would sooner see this end achieved by research and by training with adequate safeguards than by advertisement campaigns.' (145)
Barlow's understanding of the science of the work evolves over time. For instance, in his early writings, he accepts Coghill's suggestion that Alexander's 'primary control' exemplifies the reflexive movement patterns that Magnus and Coghill both explored, but later he agrees with Tinbergen that such accounts are only suited for simple life forms. (236) Similarly, in his early writings (during psychology's behaviorist period), he describes a lesson as a sort of conditioning in which the pupil learns to associate a particular pattern of muscle activations (and the accompanying sensations) with a series of verbal orders (neck free, back lengthening and widening, etc.), so that eventually, just thinking the orders produces the desired pattern of muscle activation. Later (during the 'cognitive revolution') he abandons talk of conditioning and instead emphasizes the need for teachers to convey the principles in terms that the pupil can understand.
I would not recommend this book to those looking for an up-to-date account of the neurophysiology of the Alexander Technique, because without recent annotation it is impossible to know which of the scientific ideas presented are supported by current research, which are outdated, and which are still untested. For instance, a passage about proprioception (101) says, 'When a muscle is shortened, spindle activity ceases.' This is true for the fast-adapting muscle spindles that fire in response to muscle lengthening, but not for the slow-adapting muscles spindles that fire in response to position. However, other concepts, such as his definitions of kinesthesia, set, and body schema (called 'postural model' and 'construct' in early writings) do stand the test of time, and his concept of 'postural homeostasis' is in line with modern conceptions of postural control.
Sadly, Dr. Barlow's critiques of popular 'postural education' programs remain valid many decades later, including his observation that most of these programs are doomed to fail because they teach the wrong things, such as pulling the shoulder blades together (152), and they are mechanistic and do not address the body schema. (147)
One of my favorite chapters is 'Medical Aspects of the Alexander Technique,' which discusses some historical reasons for the problematic relationship between the Alexander Technique and medical science. Dr. Barlow urges teachers to welcome research into the mechanisms underlying our work, arguing that, 'It is precisely the quality of our theoretical explanatory framework which will make our technique an educational rather than a curative technique.' In this spirit, the book does point in some directions where research would be particularly fruitful. For instance, this quote from Sherrington is still accurate: 'The tonus of skeletal muscle is an obscure problem. Its mode of production, its distribution in the musculature, its purposive significance, are all debatable.' (101) Recent research by Tim Cacciatore uses insight from Alexander to shed light on this difficult problem. (See Tim Cacciatore's research report on page 23 in this issue.)
Barlow defines posture as 'a person's willingness and ability to maintain that relationship of the different parts of his body which ensures their most efficient behavioral function and physiological functioning both now and in the future.' (171) This is a lovely definition, weaving together the neuro-physiological concept of postural control with the ergonomic ideal of postural alignment and the psychological concept of willingness. However, the integral relationship of these different aspects of posture is not yet accepted in mainstream science. This is another area where research on the Alexander Technique can help advance the scientific understanding of posture and movement.
This book will be of interest mainly to people interested in the history of the Alexander Technique and in its future. It is not suitable for beginners, very little of it is specifically directed towards Alexander teachers, and there is not very much in it that meets current standards of scientific evidence. However, for those struggling with understanding (and shaping) the course of the Alexander Technique, it provides a useful and important perspective.
2015 © Rajal G. Cohen (www.RajalCohen.com). Reproduced with permission.
This edition © Mouritz 2015. All rights reserved.This collection of 40 research papers, letters and other writings essentially comprises Dr Wilfred Barlow's collected papers on the Alexander Technique. Eight of the papers will be familiar to readers of More Talk of Alexander: four of them were edited and published in MTA and four articles which were written exclusively for MTA are also included here. Barlow relied on much of his previous research and writings for The Alexander Principle so readers of AP will also experience some déja vu. Assuming you are familiar with MTA and AP, what is new?
The most substantial part of the book consists of the research papers. Barlow was a pioneer of scientific research on the Technique. His methods often consisted of before- and after-lessons photographs of nude pupils, from the back, side and front. (The pictures are b/w and faded. Picture quality is not great since the original pictures were not available to the publisher.) Postural faults, identified in the photographs, were then assessed and graded. Faults involving the position of the head, including poking forwards, retracted, tilted, or pulled down could be recorded. Likewise, the raising, dropping, rotating or pulling together of the shoulders. The totals were then added up to give an index of postural defects. Subsequent lessons in the Technique showed consistent improvement. Naturally Barlow's published papers could include only a few illustrations; it would be fascinating to see the hundreds of photographs which form the foundation of this research. Such research methods are not fashionable any more, but his descriptions and convincing arguments for the Technique are still valid. He read widely, quotes from the contemporary research of his day, and provides a long list of references.
He also wrote with great insight on the connection between anxiety, muscle tension and pain.
Then there are some letters of minor historical interest: writings in medical journals designed to draw attention to the Alexander Technique; some skirmishing with Charles Neil (who had separated from Alexander and set up his Re-Educational Centre with the assistance of Sir Stafford Cripps and Dame Isobel Cripps), and some skirmishing with Edward Maisel (in New Scientist, following an article critical of Tinbergen's Nobel Acceptance Speech: "Did Nobelist go too far in Advocating Alexander Technique?").
There are a couple of articles explaining the AT to the general public, principally through making the reader observe herself and her own posture and use. These articles corroborate an impression I got from the video Paul and Linda McCartney did of Dr Barlow teaching: the emphasis on what is right and what is wrong, and how to correct what is wrong, as if the purpose of the Technique is to put you right. I suppose this style of teaching stands out for me because it is so different from my own style of teaching. Vive la difference.
Also prominent is Dr Barlow's staunch defence of the role of the Technique within orthodox medicine ( 'Medical Aspects of the Alexander Technique' from 1965). He writes:
. . . the medical implications of the Alexander Principle [i.e. Technique] have been ridiculously underplayed by the majority of Alexander teachers . . . . before I embark on pointing out why the medical implications of the Alexander Principle are so important, let me have a crack at the 'educationalists'. (p. 219).
This article should be contrasted with Walter Carrington's 'On Categorizing the Alexander Technique' (1989). They represent two conflicting views (which, by the way, were also present in Alexander's writings).
Perhaps this sentence explains Dr Barlow's vexation with the educational approach:
. . .what are we to say of an educational approach in which 'non-doing' so easily becomes 'nothing-doing', and in which inhibition becomes unresponsiveness. (p. 220).
And he finds the concept of the primary control 'most mystifying':
[Alexander's] concept of the 'primary control' seemed not only to be saying that the muscular balance of our heads and necks had to be accurate if the rest of the body was to be well-used, but also that our conscious regulation of this primary head-neck balance in some way was to become the single most important control in our lives - that in some way full self-realisation could depend on this factor, which would supremely regulate all of our functions and not simply be one balancing factor amongst many other balancing factors. He himself did not make it clear why the full expression of our nature should be so dependent upon our having such a single control which would apparently have such profound effects on our psychological functioning. ('The Meaning of Misuse', p. 259).
This reassessment of the primary control is probably connected with research which Tinbergen had summarised in his 1951 book and which stated that Coghill's findings cannot be generalised from the Amblystoma to other species. This cuts to the core of a general assumption about the Technique: a physiological basis for the primary control in the organisation of the organism around a total pattern. Barlow writes:
In recent years, it has seemed more and more likely that a large part of Alexander-learning is by the addition of separately learned components, rather than simply by differentiation out of a generalised total pattern. ('The Total Pattern of Behaviour', p. 265.)
Whatever your view, some of the issues he raises in these articles and the article "What Sort of Alexander Teacher?" are almost impossible to avoid as a teacher of the Technique, and they need consideration.
The book is a record of Dr Barlow's long life with and developing understanding of the Alexander Technique. To me it stands the test of time because he wrote so well, with a common sense approach that is difficult to argue with. Over and beyond all this, the book is an opportunity for an overdue reappraisal of Barlow's contribution to the Technique.
2014 © Jean M. O. Fischer. Reproduced with permission.
This edition © Mouritz 2014. All rights reserved.
© Copyright Mouritz 2022