Talk:Alexander Technique

Alexander technique discussion page:

Defining the Alexander technique in words has been a problematic issue for practitioners from the days of Alexander to the present. That is not to say that Alexander himself did not try his best at describing what he felt was an observable phenomenon, as demonstrated by his prolific discussions and a number of published works.

There have also been attempts to study the Alexander technique using post-positivistic methodologies, but none of these studies have been conclusive, primarily since the technique requires a relatively lengthy period of learning for most people and the controls required by this tradition have not to date been satisfied.

Promising evidence generated by studies of the past has led to renewed interest in the technique as a research topic that might appropriately be studied through the more recently accepted means of triangualation involving fieldwork, case study, and perhaps most fundamentally, the establishment of contemporary terms that are useful in describing the method for purposes of study. See "Voice pedagogy and the Alexander Technique" Journal of singing, 1991 by Daniel M. Zipperer in reference to descriptors provided by Mrs. Frank P. Jones.

At least one Journal Direction Journal sponsored by practitioners of the Alexander technique Worldwide continued this attempt to discuss the characteristics of the technique until recently.

There have continued to be differences and problems associated with discussion of the technique partly due to the language used by Alexander himself which has been viewed as archaic and long-winded by critics from Alexander's day to the present.

Note: the 'Dewey vs. Alexander' link leads to a vanity page in which an Objectivist student of the Technique attempts to discredit the connection between Alexander and Dewey. A much more honest, and thorough, exploration can be found at: http://www.alexandercenter.com/jd/ which includes links to much of Dewey's writings on the Technique.

"Vanity page" is just name-calling, as is the honesty crack. On the site in question, Dewey vs. Alexander, you will find a collection of short articles arguing that the oft proclaimed association of John Dewey with the Alexander Technique is entirely superficial. The site has many quotes from Dewey not found elsewhere on the web.

The reason it's tricky to describe the Alexander Technique is not so difficult to understand. Characteristic of the practice is that Alexander Technique takes people into the kinesthetic unknown, where the know-it-all side of the talking brain has never been before. Descriptions have improved. The site with the most simplified, easy to understand language on Alexander Technique has been the Performance School in Seattle, WA. They offer an online study guide to Alexander's books. There's even a series on how to teach yourself without an Alexander teacher.

Could we add back an introduction which gives a general overview of the topic? I already did so this morning but was reverted -- Tarquin 12:09 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Oops, guess I was writing it at the time so didn't notice what you had done. The public has somehow acquired the mistaken impression that the definition is a variation on "Sit-Up-Straight School". Addressing this, Alexander teachers often purposefully avoid the use of the word "posture" because people commonly stiffen themselves up in response to it. The unfamiliar freedom a learner must come to welcome is far beyond substituting a so-called "better" posture for a worse one. It is a troublesome paradox to get rid of the misconception that a Perfect-Way-To-Move exists. That said, I agree on a general introduction being useful. So I slightly altered the wording of your intro to hopefully not encourage this public misconception of "selling short" Alexander Technique. Franis Engel

Looks good. -- Tarquin 12:11 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

At the moment, this is so positive about the Alexander Technique that it doesn't really look NPOV. To restore the balance, a lot of the statements in it need to be attributed: "Some people say...", "Proponents of the technique say...". The Anome 16:58 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure Alexander technique has opponents as such. I agree that some things in the article may need attributing but not everything does. -- Tarquin

Concerning Alexander Technique there seems to be only "the yet uneducated" rather than any opposition. Anyone who wants to take the time to continue the investigation firsthand in that field can verify all of its principles from their own self-observation - and that's the point. I took out some of the superlatives in the eighth paragraph, as well as the exclamation point and put some headings in. Does that help enough? Perhaps more of a mention of science that is being done could be included in certain places by someone who knows more about it? I thought including that sort of thing would make the article too long, so I added a hint on the link where some research documentation is.Franis Engel

Ok, I made an edit in the first paragraph stating the the Technique was developed in the "late 1900s" to the late 1800s. I'm sorry, but FM died in 1955 so he could not have developed anything during the late 1900s. I am going to hold off on replacing this mainly because I do not know exactly when FM developed the Technique. My only contention is that the statement which includes 1900s is clearly in error and should be replaced (perhaps "early 1900s" is correct). I encourage: Tarquin to do so sincce (s)he saw fit to re-insert this error. --mporch 21:21, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The "1900s" is a decade. Follow the link to 1900s and see. FM wasn't alive in the 1800s, which is the first decade of the 19th century. -- Tarquin 08:55, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. It seems like a confusing naming convention. Those unfamiliar with this wikipedia-ism will misunderstand the meaning of this sentence unless they follow the 1900s link. Perhaps the sentence could be rephrased so link text is not 1900s but follows the link to 1900s. What do you think? --mporch 02:14, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's really a "wikipedia-ism", it's the correct terminology. -- Tarquin 10:19, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why are there no references to proprioception or kinesthesia. The article does use the phrase "kinesthetic sense". --mporch 08:03, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I just made a major edit, trying to take into account the new CAM requirements as well as readability. Yes, I agree that the 1900s decade reference is confusing if you didn't already know the convention. FM developed his Technique from 1901-1910. Also, I included references to proprioception, as suggested. Do you think it's necessary to install the link to the words "kinesthetic sense" that lead to "kinesthesia?"-- I see that RSI (under "Who Uses It?" ) could use a link also, so I'm going to check out to find where that should lead on this site. Franis Engel 2:01pm 21 May 2004 (PDT)