Rational Means for Irrational Times Part I
“It seems to me that the present world crisis indicates that this is the psychological moment to make a wide application of my principles . . . . It is . . . essential to recognise that we have reached a point in the process called civilisation which will be recorded as one of the most critical and vital in the world’s history.” MSI, Chapter VIII
It must have been disturbing to write those words almost a century ago. And yet they have become even more true in our time–far more true than Alexander could possibly have imagined when he first wrote them.(1) Man’s Supreme Inheritance expresses a grand vison for Alexander’s principles and for humankind. Though he says in the preface that “no mention will be found of royal roads, panaceas, or grand specifics,” he nevertheless believes his principles should be “taken up universally,” and it is clear that he sees them as crucial to the evolution of humanity.
Some questions arise if we compare Alexander’s vision with present conditions:
• How is it possible that the work remains largely at the fringe?
• Why has its reputation and influence not spread far and wide?
• Why has it not become integrated into the education system?
• Why doesn’t every teacher of the Technique have an overflowing professional practice?
• How does the worsening human situation relate to the failure of the Technique to take hold in human society?
• What can we, as teachers of the Technique, do to help resolve the problems facing our species?
The first four questions are admittedly redundant, but it is helpful to have them spelled out. We really have three crucial questions then, and how we answer them could be critical not only to the profession, but to the planet at large. If the Technique can in any way help humanity to save itself and to evolve in a meaningful way–worse yet, if it happens to be fundamental to the survival and flourishing of our species–we cannot afford for it to continue to advance in the same way it has so far. At this point it may be a matter of ethical principle that we take a more proactive and vigorous approach to the advancement of our work. In five or ten years the human species could be in very dire straits. It could even be on its way to extinction, or already gone. The circumstances right now are serious, but there is still time to act.
This is an essay in two parts.(2) The first part is essentially a call for a more engaged community of teachers. As human beings, we have a vested interest in the critical issues facing our species. As American citizens, we enjoy the great blessing–and the great responsibility–that we can do something about the grave dangers we face. As John Dewey humorously points out, “The magic of eating a hair of the dog which bit you in order to cure hydrophobia is as nothing to the magic involved in the belief that those who have privilege and power will remedy the breakdown they have created.”(3) In a similar vein, Noam Chomsky says, “Reforms will not suffice. Fundamental social change is necessary to bring meaningful democracy.”(4)
As Alexander teachers, we have a unique contribution to make to the problems humanity currently faces. We know Alexander discovered something fundamental about the structure of human experience, something that can help lay the foundation for authentic human flourishing. We also know that Alexander envisioned a grand role for his discoveries. The quote that sets the tone for this article expresses that clearly. As voiced in MSI, Alexander believed, “that the whole human race” stood at a “great psycho-physical turning point in its history, and that if the true nature of this evolutionary stage could be understood, it might and should be possible to direct man’s physical and mental progression . . .”(5) But Alexander’s vision has so far faltered. The Technique has languished in the margins for decades. A few celebrity students does not a new world order make.
If Alexander were alive today, one suspects he could immediately connect the dots. From his point of view, the horrific suffering and the potential for global catastrophe that we see today could have been completely avoided if only his principles had received proper attention and implementation. His point of view has special meaning for American teachers because Alexander had high hopes for this country. Measured by its privileges and its potential, America is certainly the greatest nation on the planet, and Alexander recognized this. He felt confident that “she” would find a way “to form a national mind, sane enough and strong enough to control the great national body.” For him, and probably for Dewey, this would have demanded the application of his principles.
From the point of view of Alexander’s work, what we need is not a new course of action, but a new way of being. In MSI he contends that,
One of the most startling fallacies of human thought has been the attempt to inaugurate rapid and far-reaching reforms in the religious, moral, social, political, educational, and industrial spheres of human activity, whilst the individuals by whose aid these reforms can be made practical and effective, have remained dependent upon subconscious guidance and all that it connotes. Such attempts have always been made by men or women who were almost completely ignorant of the one fundamental principle which would so have raised the standard of evolution, that the people upon whom they sought to impose these reforms might have passed from one stage of development to another without risk of losing their mental, spiritual, or physical balance.
Indeed, we could say that genuine reform gears itself toward the attainment of mental, physical, and spiritual balance.
In this regard, I would like to consider the role of the Alexander Technique and its teachers in the sphere of genuine reform.(6) I want to make some suggestions about what we can do to foster genuine reform with the result that we will contribute in a meaningful way to the survival of the species. At the same time we can make the first real strides in decades toward the growth and propagation of our work in accord with Alexander’s vision and our own beliefs about its value and importance.
The sustainability movement makes for the best focus of our attention, because sustainability simply means human beings living in balance. Phrased this way, one can understand that it is incorrect to translate “sustainability movement” as “environmental movement.” On the other hand, with this short formulation we might not grasp the breadth of what “sustainability” entails. Therefore, we can provide a longer formulation which helps one to look more carefully into what sustainability implies: human beings living in balance in a more-than-human world. We can understand that human beings do not just live IN a more than human world; human beings ARE the more-than-human world. We consist of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and dozens of other elements. We depend on photons, protons, and neutrinos, some of which pour into the atmosphere from many light years away. We think and move in the field of gravity while planning and promising in the field of time. We breathe air nurtured by plant life, we drink water filtered through earth. We depend on animals, insects, and bacteria. Our human existence is constituted by the entirety of what we think of as non-human.
Likewise the more-than-human world is infused with the best and worst of our humanity. We affect and enact(7) the world with our every observation and movement. Look in this way and part of “nature” behaves like a particle; look in that way and it behaves like a wave. Look in this way and you find property for indiscriminate consumption, garbage for indiscriminate disposal; look in that way and you find sentient beings that can be honored and things of value that can be repurposed, recycled, and reused.
This living in balance is not a static equilibrium. It is a dynamic harmony with the energies of life, a vital and reverent connection to all that supports us and all that we support. Connection and interconnectedness are key principles of sustainability, and in general people in the movement have an understanding that humankind is so inextricably connected to its environment that the problems of one are the problems of the other. This realization carries political implications. For instance, the level of greenhouse gases constitutes a problem. One can think of it as an “environmental” problem, but this belies its interconnection with humanity. Not just that human suffering may result from a failure to address the problem, but that human suffering is a principle precondition of it. Some workers in the sustainability movement have realized that solving the problem will be easier and of greater value if, as one example, the labor unions are included in the discussion. Plans for creating secure jobs in renewable energy, automobile manufacturing, and environmental maintenance are of interest to every American, and such plans are fundamental to sustainability. Of course, perpetuating the current nuclear threat is completely antithetical to sustainability. This means international diplomacy, the health of the UN, and a staunch commitment to arms reduction are also fundamental to sustainability. So is peace in the Middle East.
Alexander would have applauded this way of thinking about the problem. In MSI he writes about how, “In every sphere of life we have for years given ‘effects’ the significance of ‘causes’ and have made worthy attempts to put matters right on this unsound basis.” He goes on to give the example of social programs for the poor, arguing that donations of food, money, and clothing do not help as much as providing intelligent means for the poor to obtain these things for themselves. We can put aside the question of what would count as the most intelligent means for the task. His point still has validity. With respect to “the environment” it reveals a clear picture. Surely we cannot teach ecosystems how to clean and preserve themselves.(8) We must acknowledge that we are part of the conscious meanswhereby of Nature. We are the cause and the effects of all the problems we see. By becoming more balanced, by making ourselves sustainable, we can, in Alexander’s words, “satisfy [our] needs and command [our] own advancement.”
This points to the central contribution the Technique can make for the sustainability movement and for any possibility of human flourishing. Our opinion of the movement to put humankind in balance is very simple: we cannot have a sustainable world unless we have sustainable humans. Sustainability is not, and cannot be, just another ideal, another concept, another argument or political position. It is a necessary way of being. We cannot achieve a fundamental kind of balance if we are unsustainable in our way of being. We cannot stop global warming if our every gesture burns with entropy, friction, resistance, and other forms of unnecessary heat.
Among other things, this means that the people heading up these efforts must themselves be in balance. Furthermore, the greater the level of balance in those the movement seeks to help, the more effective and efficient it will be. As teachers of the Technique, we must marshal every effort to help progressive leaders to become more balanced in their way of being so they can best research and advance the message of sustainability. We must also marshal every effort to help the public and our political representatives to become more balanced so they can best receive the message of sustainability. The general idea amounts to this: the “use” of human beings must take center stage, because that is the place to get our hands on our problem–there lies the primary control of human destiny.
Of course, we must be ready to accept the flip side of the coin: just as one cannot truly live sustainably without being in balance, one cannot truly be in balance without a sustainable way of life. We can look at our own lives, and at the life of the culture in which we live, and we can see clearly how unsustainable we are. Therefore we cannot say we are in balance, and we cannot say we are using ourselves well. It will not do to blame "them" or to wait for "them" to fix the problems. Instead we can focus on the concepts and principles found in our work.
The work radiates in two directions: “inward” and “outward.” The deeper the “inward” accomplishment, the more expansive and beautiful the outward result–and the more sustainable. Alexander makes it clear how this applies to us. He tells us plainly that if you want to judge a process, just look at the “outward” result. More radical improvements in our awareness, inhibition, and non-doing will result in teachers who radiate poise and balance in an ever widening circle, and this means higher net levels of balance in human life at large. This is the foundation of sustainability.
By applying Alexander’s simple test we quickly conclude that these radical improvements are desperately needed. We are in a state of chaos, which from our perspective means we ARE a state of chaos. We are completely out of communication with our faculties of reason with respect to our daily behavior. Every gesture suffers from debauched sensory awareness and an inadequate orientation (a lack of poise in the widest sense).(9) If we keep up the present meanswhereby, we will need (conservatively speaking) at least five additional planets to sustain us.(10) This is not simply a cute statistic designed to get people to say, “Wow. Isn’t that crazy?” We do not have five planets! We do NOT have five planets! So we must take action now. Not some other day, but starting now we must inhibit, tune our awareness, and find the non-doing of planetary living. We must connect ourselves more deeply to the energies of life. In short, we must practice the Technique, bringing it to new levels of attainment and renown.
As we begin to do this, we will see that the Alexander Technique IS sustainability. That makes it part and parcel of overcoming our current difficulties and founding a sustainable way of life. This in turn implies that teachers of the Technique have a compelling ethical duty to actively participate in current efforts to create a sustainable way of life. This may seem like a heavy demand, but that is how history works. Just as the man in the New York subway found himself face to face with a critical situation–another man lying on the tracks and a train on its way–we too must leap into action. In this case, humanity itself lies on the tracks, and the train is coming fast. In a way, it is already here. Human beings everywhere suffer the effects of our unsustainable ways of being. George Monbiot reports a World Health Organization estimate that 150,000 people are already dying every year as a result of the current level of global warming. In the very near future, billions of people will suffer from the effects of climate change.(11) This only adds to other suffering caused by our unsustainable ways of being: Darfur, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Israel, Lebanon, China. The list is so long, yet the real stories rarely make it into our corporate media.(12) As Alexander teachers, we have an ethical duty to take action. We can help. We know that misuse is fundamentally tied into the problems we are seeing, and we know that lasting solutions are far more likely when they arise out of a more balanced way of being.
What is the alternative? Can we really continue as we have every day, thinking (hoping, or simply self-hypnotized) that our leaders, our corporations, or some other group or savior will stave off catastrophe? If we apply our intelligence to these things on a Monday, can we go on moving the same way on Tuesday, making the same gestures, buying the same goods, driving the same car, eating the same food, speaking and thinking in basically the same ways we did yesterday and every day before? As teachers of the Technique, we have plenty of evidence that a radical inhibition is required, that new levels of non-doing must be achieved, and that somehow our sensory awareness must refine itself even more. We have to see what is going on for what it really is, and see how we made it and how we perpetuate it in all the minutiae of our daily living, in every thought and movement.(13)
Though I think teachers everywhere can and should work toward founding a more sustainable way of human life (with the Technique as a keystone), and while I would encourage international cooperation among all teachers, we in America have perhaps a more pressing obligation. Recall that Alexander harbored a special confidence in America’s potential. I quoted above his thought that America had the capability to create a balanced and sustainable “national mind” at the helm of a balanced and sustainable “national body.” He went on to add that: “No finer ambition is possible than this. The old ambition of dominance, whether commercial or military, defeats itself by its very exaggeration. Such ambitions mount up until they become topheavy, and, even if they could be achieved, the result would be nothing but a decadence such as that which followed the Empire of Rome.” Chomsky’s arguments regarding America’s status as a failed state come starkly to mind. But if we can overcome our failures, Alexander suggests that America “would be free, with a greater liberty than history can record, and to such a nation little would be impossible. She would become the teacher of the world by the force of her reason and example. She would inaugurate the coming of a greater and wiser humanity.” This is a vision not only of the future of humanity, but also of the proper role of the Technique in shaping it. It’s time to bring this vision to life.
There are some practical things we can begin doing right away. First and foremost we must examine ourselves in the mirror of awareness. We need to look at the movements, gestures, and ways of being we take for granted and see if they harbor unnoticed consequences for ourselves or others. There are so many simple questions we can ask. Where do we buy coffee? From where does it come? What are the impacts? Are we using a thermos? Could we make it at home? Is it Fair Trade certified?
How about water? Have we considered the fact that 20 million barrels of oil go into making plastic water bottles every year? What are the impacts of our water habits?
How about food?
How about commuting and traveling?
How about lighting, powering, building, and maintaining our homes and our studios?
How about our business cards and other literature?
We need to not only look at our habits, but we need to try to become more educated. There is an abundance of good information once we get outside of the corporate media. We can also learn from each other as a group.
This latter point cannot be overemphasized. Teachers of the Technique should band together as a united force to foster sustainability. We can help one another, and we can have a significant impact on the larger community.
One thing we can do as a group is become a sustainable organization. This means passing with all haste a firm timetable for getting everyone in the organization to practice the work in a sustainable manner, and for getting the administrative operations of the organization itself in balance. The cost for this would probably work out to be a few extra dollars added to membership fees. The cost for making the AGM’s sustainable might be higher, and certain practices may no longer be tenable. There is strong evidence that jet travel is totally unsustainable.(14) Rather than waiting for the airline industry or our politicians to admit this, it would be better to take the courageous route of self-imposed restrictions–for flying and for other things.
We might shoot for 25% increases in sustainability per year over the next four years (as a minimum). By the end of that time, not only would the administrative practices of AmSAT be conducted in a fully sustainable manner, but membership in the organization would also require sustainable practices. Schools and teachers unwilling to practice the work in a minimally sustainable manner would be denied membership, because it would be seen as out of line with the principles of the work to operate in unsustainable ways (i.e. it would constitute bad use of an unacceptable kind, given the context).
We seem to be rather slow in taking action on certain things, so it may prove challenging to get our group to agree on a course of action. I would be very disappointed if we as a progressive group could not lead the way to a more sustainable future by submitting ourselves to very high standards. We should not wait until the government pass legislation. We risk a great deal if we do. After all, the most likely scenario of government action will be this: Politicians will argue and debate; certain reform measures will be put forward (these measures will be woefully inadequate by scientific account); the measures will fail to avert disaster; politicians will look at us and say, “We tried.” The only way we will stop massive suffering is if we demand proper action on the part of our political representatives. They are, after all, representatives. They are not supposed to provide solutions. They are supposed to follow the will of “the people.” We MUST take action. It begins here, with us, this very privileged group of teachers of the art of sustainability. And we should certainly apply our art to our own professional activities.
If we cannot take political action as a group, we can at least take action as individuals, and socially as subgroups within our profession. We must keep dialogue active and open. We can help each other understand why these issues are important, how we can best evaluate them, and how we can find the most elegant and cost efficient ways to become sustainable and to propagate the Technique. I for one am very interested in working with any teachers or students of the Technique who want to inquire into what may turn out to be the defining issue of our time.
There are many things teachers of the Technique can begin doing right away in their personal and professional life to become more sustainable. As a group we would decide what kinds of practices would be required from a professional standpoint in order for someone to remain a member in good standing. Policing this kind of thing seems foolish. An honor system should suffice. Moreover, cooperative effort should be a guiding force. Here are some suggestions on what we as teachers can begin to do today. Note that some of them would almost certainly NOT become formal “rules” within our organization (e.g. dietary restrictions are best left to religious institutions). Such suggestions are nevertheless useful to acknowledge in spirit, and we would benefit by discussing them in a healthy and open way:
1) calculate our carbon load and find ways to reduce it
2) increase our rates by a minuscule amount to make their practice more sustainable ($1 per lesson would allow one to buy wind energy credits AND have some left over for wildlife and humanitarian organizations, i.e. recognizing that carbon load is not the whole story)
3) use recycled and environmentally friendly goods in our homes and offices (including trash bags, bathroom tissue, facial tissue, cleaning products, light bulbs, printer paper, and more, and remembering to take canvas bags to the store rather than using paper or plastic bags)
4) follow a wholly or largely vegetarian/vegan diet(15)
5) drive bio-diesel or hybrid vehicles, and stop using jet aircraft
6) become educated about the climate crisis, nuclear threats, issues relating to peace, equality, and human flourishing, and the groups and organizations that deal with these problems
7) support political organizations and campaigns that contribute to good use; this could include having petitions and information AVAILABLE to students, though it would specifically NOT include proselytizing (furthermore, “political” discussions in the context of a lesson are in many cases dangerous at best)
8) support independent media who contribute to good use by fostering public debate and critical reflection on the many faces of sustainability; have information available to students in an appropriate way
Simplistic rationalizations against following such measures (“it’s annoying to shop for recycled goods,” “I like eating animal products,” “it’s big business that has to become sustainable, not Alexander teachers,” “this is inconvenient,” and so on) are not only untenable–in the contemporary context they are unethical and inhumane. In our own language, these are simply a few of the new criteria of use for our age. One can understand these criteria such that they are a fundamental part of good use, or that they are a fundamental gauge of good use. Either way, teachers must be expected to follow them and to skillfully and appropriately(16) explain them to students.
This may so far sound like a harsh formulation. Worse yet, it may strike some teachers as a criticism. It shouldn’t.(17) This article has to do with consciousness raising, a big part of our game. It doesn’t help to feel guilty, hopeless, critical, or angry about the fact that certain things have operated below the level of our conscious awareness. Our work involves an expansion of consciousness coupled with the conscientiousness to act appropriately with respect to the new awareness. We are not evil because we have so far acted unsustainably. We simply acted subconsciously, with erroneous preconceived ideas and occluded awareness. Once we become aware of the causes at work, we can hardly tolerate continued failure to act with poise.
These are no less than the kind of demands Alexander himself made in CCC(18), where he says we must be ready to accept “new and expanding ideas” once we understand their value, even if they conflict with our cherished beliefs and habits. He says we must be able to adapt ourselves to “the rapid changes of environment,” and be able to do so “with benefit, instead of detriment or injury . . .” This precisely describes our situation. Our scientific and philosophical understanding have developed in such a way that we are presented with new and expanding ideas about humans beings and their place in the world. This serves to deepen and broaden our understanding of use. Simultaneously, the rapid changes brought on by civilization have altered our environment in such a way that we must very quickly adapt ourselves, or else we face the possibility of large scale suffering–perhaps even annihilation. Alexander’s expectations are very high indeed, because he also measures a man by “the standard of his ability to hold in abeyance the fear of giving up his job, in whatever profession . . . and boldly to make the necessary change . . .” If we must be willing to sacrifice even our livelihood, all the more so our lifestyle if it cannot be made sustainable. We must practice inhibition and non-doing in the face of the many fears provoked by the kinds of changes we need to make. Moving forward boldly is the best thing to do, and it earns us the right to call ourselves true teachers of the work.
In addition to the above changes, there is another aspect to a proactive approach which I strongly recommend. If the Technique is everything we think it is, if it can help lay the foundation for genuine reform, if there is any possibility that it is an important key to human flourishing and the evolution of humanity, then we must do everything we can to promote it. Methods used up to this point must be judged as insufficient since, as we all know, demand for teachers does not correlate with the observable need, let alone with the relative importance we ascribe to the principles.
I would like to suggest a strategic group effort to create work for teachers while helping to serve the larger concerns for sustainability. There are many ways for group collaboration to manifest, but one of the ways I propose we do this is to approach environmental, humanitarian, peace, and educational organizations (including public and private schools and universities), as well as progressive companies. The idea is to present the benefits of a training initiative based on the Technique. In the case of progressive companies (like Interface, Google, Whole Foods, etcetera) we could present this in a number of ways. The Technique could form the foundation of training from a theoretical stance–i.e., Dewey’s sense of the Technique’s bearing “the same relation to education that education bears to all other human activity.” But we could present it in other ways as well.
For instance, we might take the well being approach, stressing the potential cost savings involved. Back pain and stress-related illnesses are the most widespread medical problems in the industrialized world. Back pain alone costs our country $50 BILLION each year. Some estimates range even higher. And the number of working days lost because of back pain is estimated to be as high as 120 MILLION working days every year. These are astonishing statistics. Yet, as startling as they are, we know the story doesn't end there. What about all the workers who come to work suffering from the side-effects of pain and/or medication? And what about those workers for whom medication fails? We can only imagine the restrictions they face in realizing their potential.
As for stress, we are only beginning to understand the depth and breadth of this damaging and costly threat to human well being. It has been called "an epidemic," "America's Number One Health Problem." In our times, it would be startling to meet someone who DOESN'T feel stressed on a fairly regular basis. And our jobs are often the MAJOR contributing factor to the stress we experience. Depending on the employee, this could mean the loss of a customer because of a misunderstanding, the loss of a valued team member because of unnecessary friction, or the loss of just a little bit of daily productivity that, over the course of a career, adds up to months of wasted time and money. But this loss of potential could also mean something much more, like losing a major client, missing a major trend, or failing to make a ground breaking discovery. Much of this is well known to us as teachers of the Technique. But we have so far not gotten the message out to a very wide audience.
The Technique could also be used to train employees in public speaking. It could form the foundation of master classes in negotiation and creative thinking. And it could form part of safety training, conflict resolution, and more.
The training might take place in the following way. The corporation would pay fees based on the number of employees trained and the type of training offered. In the most basic form of training, a group of teachers of the Technique would go on-site to work with the employees for as short a time as half a day or as long a time as three or four weeks. In the case of an intense approach, a group of key employees would have lessons once or twice a day for a full course of lessons (between 20 and 40). We might have ten teachers go to work at a company five days a week for three or four weeks, during which time they would give roughly eight to ten lessons per day.(19) To be involved in such efforts, we would select teachers based on location and other factors, but we would certainly benefit from having teachers involved who are willing to travel to do this kind of work. A teacher in Seattle might take a train to San Francisco for a week or more to work with a company there. The company pays for all expenses (including balancing the impact of the trip with energy credits, etc), and the fees for the teacher would be on the order of $60-80 per lesson in the case of actual lessons, or something like $5000 per day in the case of group training or consulting, with some of the fees going to AmSAT for the purposes of expansion. This is perfectly in line with what other consultants charge.
With non-profit groups (everything out there, including peace groups, wildlife groups, humanitarian groups, economic development groups, elementary schools, universities . . . everything), we need to take a different approach. These groups would greatly benefit from the same kind of training in the Technique, but they do not have money to spare for it. However, since AmSAT is itself a non-profit entity, it could apply for grants from Federal agencies and private foundations. The grants would allow teachers to get paid the same amount as they would at a for-profit corporation. If AmSAT as an organization cannot act efficiently and cooperatively enough to make this happen within a reasonable time frame (which is short, given the need), groups of teachers could work under the umbrella of other non-profit groups.(20) For instance, the Earth Island Institute serves as a sponsor to many groups in just this capacity. They offer administrative support, accounting services, a nonprofit bulk and business reply mail permit, and more, all while providing the benefits of operating under the auspices of a recognized non-profit agency. They offer all of this in return for a 9% fee on the grants received for the project, which, based on what one gets in return, is a bargain for smaller and newer groups. To date they have supported the launch of over 50 sustainability projects.
Again, cooperation should be a guiding force. We can have a much more powerful influence if we actively work together to promote the Technique and generate clients for the organization as a whole. There are many ways to facilitate this. One good idea would be to created a listserve, forum, and/or bulletin board service hosted by the AmSAT website. A listserve is a powerful internet tool that forwards a message sent by one member of a group to all the other members via email. So, I might meet someone on an airplane who lives in Carmel and who belongs to a country club there. He and half a dozen of his friends are obsessive golfers, and after hearing about the Technique he thinks that maybe they could all be persuaded to attend a golf clinic based on the work. I could email the listserve to ask who in the area might be best for the job. Or maybe I have an aunt in the public school system in Florida, and we get to talking about developing a program for teachers. I might send a message to the listserve about that. I might also post questions seeking advice for working with certain students, resolving business conflicts, networking, and more. We could also notify one another of interesting articles, policy developments, sustainability issues, marketing tips, and so forth. The listserve goes one step further than a forum or bulletin board in that the message is not simply posted, it is sent to everyone. The messages can be automatically gathered into a digest format so that you receive a single email each day with headings listing all the new message topics so you can quickly decide which ones are of interest to you while ignoring the rest. Of course, a forum might prove valuable as the reputation of the Technique grows since it could have public access sections. These kinds of networks already exist on the net, of course, but it makes good sense to have one sponsored by AmSAT in addition to the smaller ones. I would also point out that while a listserve or other communication network would be a wonderful idea, we don’t have the luxury of time to wait for it. Teachers need to start contacting one another by phone, mail, and email right away to start discussions on how to move forward.
Another possibility would be to launch a network of regular meetings of the salon or Lunar Society type. Teachers in a given area could take turns hosting such gatherings, which would take place at least weekly, if not biweekly. The gatherings could be held at cafés, tea houses, senior centers, community centers, schools, or in parks, prisons, hospitals, or the homes of teachers and students of the Technique. Free lessons (or “turns”) would always be given, perhaps for the first 30-40 minutes or more. This would be a great way for newcomers to try the work at no cost. After the lesson time, discussion might turn to recent scientific developments, political issues, philosophical questions, and how the Technique might make a contribution with respect to them. These meetings could also be held in closed, professional versions, in which a deeper and more intense focus could be given to Alexander’s writings and to the development of the profession. Smaller meetings might occasionally enjoy the pleasures of the thought-luck pot-luck format, in which each person brings a sustainable dish and a sustainable thought (or a provocative question). Again, it behooves us to start planning these kinds of events right away.
Initiatives such as these may be the most important in the history of the work. They will contribute to the propagation of Alexander’s important discoveries, the cultivation of employment opportunities for teachers (to the point that we might even see the development of a demand for teachers of the Technique), and the growth–perhaps even the evolution–of the work. We would also be fulfilling Alexander’s vision of the work. But more importantly than anything else, we would be making valuable contributions to present and future generations, indeed to life itself. So much hangs in the balance, and our decisions might very well tip the scale. Though I have said it many times so far, it bears repeating that a failure to act would be ethically and aesthetically unacceptable. As Alexander himself put it, we must always “seek the highest and be content with no less.”
NOTES
It is a good idea to check some of these sources and to make some foray into these issues for yourself. I am not an authority on history, politics, economics . . . (I could make a very long list). Most of what appears in this essay strikes me as relatively clear, but healthy debate and discussion is of value. However, the preponderance of the evidentiary and theoretical support seems conclusively stacked on the side of sustainability. Check the notes, read and debate, but please take action. Call, write, or email me, your friends, your colleagues, your teachers, and your political representatives. We can do a lot of good for the Technique and for humanity if we take decisive action.
1. In the midst of working on this essay, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists advanced the Doomsday Clock by a full two minutes. You can find out more at www.thebulletin.org/minutes-to-midnight/
2. Originally this first part came second, and the two parts formed one whole. I decided it would be easier to read for most teachers if I split the parts and put this one first. The second part gives a more academic support for this one. Neither is sufficient if one demands a full “proof” of the central ideas here. In some ways, I view such a demand more as pedantry than anything else, though I think more discussion and inquiry is certainly in order.
3. John Dewey, “The Need for a New Party,” quoted in Robert Westbrook, John Dewey and American Democracy
4. Noam Chomsky, Failed States
5. Chapter II
6. By “genuine reform” I mean something on the order of Chamoky’s notion of fundamental social change; i.e. there is mere reform, which does not involve any deep change in human consciousness, and there is genuine reform, which is more valuable and lasting precisely because it involves fundamental change in human consciousness. By “sphere” I simply mean to make a joke. Only mathematicians use the word “sphere” as often as Alexander.
7. I mean this in the technical sense of the term “enact” as it is used in cognitive science, as in “enactive cognition.” It does not mean that we “create our reality” in any pop-psychological sense, but that there is an extremely tight interconnection between organism and environment. The theory of enactive cognition should be of great interest to teachers of the Technique because it counts as one of the theories of “embodied” cognition. See the work of Francisco Varela to find out more.
8. Of course, I am speaking loosely. First of all, “clean” and “preserved” are human ideas which emerged from human behavior. Secondly, Earth has all sorts of ongoing processes which could count as cleaning and preserving. In general, the Earth system is dynamic and changing. Some of these changes, in response to things like the emission of huge amounts of carbon related to human activity, will turn out to be deadly to many humans. The point is: we need to “help” “nature” “deal with” the “problems” “we” “created.”
9. Implied here and in other places in this essay is the notion that use is, in a way, context dependent. This expressly reverses the notion I have understood from more than one Alexander teacher. At least some teachers and students of the Technique seem to think that use is the thing we take with us into every context, and some may think of it as a “universal constant in living.” Under the guise of skillful means, I too have spoken this way to many people. But it is not strictly correct, and I think I should give it up. The more conservative phrasing is the one Alexander himself used in The Universal Constant in Living: “ . . . the influence of the manner of use is a constant . . .” Whereas Alexander put stress on the word “constant,” I would have put stress on the word “influence.” Your use will always exert an influence on your functioning, but the use itself tends to fluctuate with the context. The universal constant is that use exerts an influence on functioning, hence the Alexander Principle. But the use itself is not a constant. Part of the problem lies in the fact that we still hold the superstition that there is such a thing as an “organism” that can “have” a use. Just as the mystics teach us about interbeing, modern science teaches us about the organism-environment system. There is no organism apart from its environment, and based on the principle of interconnectedness, our use must ultimately be judged with reference to the planet and its history. That includes family, friends, strangers, dogs, dolphins, people in Somalia, and polar bears in the arctic. We know that no one can be totally in balance if they retain neurotic attachments. Yet almost all teachers of the technique are neurotic in one way or another. All it takes is the right context to reveal it. One way to check is to go to Thanksgiving dinner and see how you do. Another is to ride a horse. Another is to pay a visit to a Zen master. Still another is to just open the morning paper (hopefully an independent source) and read the reports of your progress. They are kind enough to update the reports of your progress every day. I say “you,” but I am one of the worst offenders I know. Altogether, one after another, WE are the problem–and the solution.
10. On the concept of ecological footprint, you could start at www.global-vision.org/city/footprint.html
11. George Monbiot, Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning. Highly recommended. Should be required reading for students of the Technique. Thanks to STAT teacher Sara Solnick for sending me a copy!
12. Good use in our time seems to demand getting news from more critical sources. Try FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), Democracy Now, and Z Net for starters.
13. I have in mind this quote from Chapter II of MSI: “ . . . civilisation, with its multitudinous problems of life and its perpetual interplay of personalities, demands even in the minutiae of physical action a constant reasoning, [and] a deliberate and comparatively rapid adaptation to surroundings . . .” That this is a white, western, rationalistic plea for mindfulness strikes me as rather transparent. A Zen Buddhist using skillful means might put things in just this way if he were speaking to Alexander. Also recall that a Zen Master can test the realization of a student by having the student do something as simple as clear his throat.
14. See Monbiot’s book, Heat. His bottom line conclusion: “If you fly, you destroy other people’s lives.” (He makes this statement at the end of chapter 9, “Love Miles.”)
15. The reason for this can be formulated in the same terms that vegetarian ethicists often use: that it is ethically and aesthetically preferable to do whatever we can to prevent and reduce suffering. However, the formulation now carries unprecedented weight. The usual arguments center on preventing the suffering of animals (either because this is seen as good in itself or because it is philosophically weak to try to distinguish human from animal suffering), or preventing our own suffering (because there is plenty of scientific evidence that a vegetarian diet is healthy). But in this context we can suggest that it has never been more urgent, more rational, or more compassionate to reduce the consumption of meat. One doesn’t have to care about the welfare of animals, one doesn’t have to give up the belief that meat is okay or even good to eat. Such lines of reasoning no longer hold, because our meat eating is simply unsustainable. It contributes greatly to the climate crisis, and it takes food out of the mouths of starving people everywhere. The land and resources we use to harvest livestock could put an end to such a vast amount of suffering that a failure to take action is essentially deplorable. There are certainly those who have switched to a basically subsistence version of meat eating: they eat a limited amount of animal products produced in apparently sustainable ways by small farms situated within a few miles of them. It is not clear how well that kind of meat eating will hold up as the climate changes. It may, in the end, still turn out to be out of balance. We may need to focus as much of our land and resources as possible on growing food for humans. And, for some people, there are still ethical concerns over any practices that raise animals for human consumption. Each person must weigh these issues carefully for herself. I cannot think of a reason why AmSAT or any other organization for the Technique would actually make this a "rule." On the other hand, there may be good reasons for acknowledging the issue in principle.
16. It would be bad use to become a group of screaming zealots. We need to learn how to speak calmly and intelligently about these issues, just as we do with any other part of our work. And we need to know the proper places, contexts, and segues, as well as the proper limitations.
17. Especially since I am admittedly one of the worst students of the Technique. Perhaps with enough work that will one day make me a poster child. Until then, I’ll non-do my best.
18. Part II, Chapter I
19. We might also allow corporations (including health plans) to purchase blocks of lessons which employees could redeem on their own.
20. This is not to say groups would not form anyway. They very likely would, to reflect synergies of style, experience, expertise, and more. The question is whether the organization can use itself well enough to stand behind such efforts, to support, promote, and facilitate them.
Nickolas Knightly is a certified teacher of the Alexander Technique offering private and group lessons, workshops, and lectures on the Technique. He specializes in working with artists, dancers, spiritual practitioners, NGO's, and sustainable businesses. He is based in the San Francisco Bay Area. Click HERE to go to the main website for more information.