For myself, coming from a psycho-therapeutic background I was used to, self–observing, questioning and making new choices, which was very much the way I approached the Technique. What if my perception of it then, is based on my habit and expectation? Are others likely to do the same? Bearing in mind that the work requires that we create a moment of stillness, (inhibition in AT terms) while we observe and chose to direct, (conscious mental instruction) and agree to something new, or not, should we so choose.

The issue is then, not whether our perception is right or wrong, but by having it do we place limiters on what we allow the Technique to do for us? For me observing and questioning what I noticed fitted in nicely with my usual habit, but I became aware when I began teaching, that others relied on their existing habit too. “This is just like doing Tai Chi / Yoga/ Pilates/ Mindfulness/healing/meditation.” Well is it?

I would argue that the answer is both “Yes and No!” YES, because quite a bit of the AT process is not entirely unique to it, so it shares common ground with a whole lot of things. Absolutely NO, because in the Technique, having observed, we do not judge it, but use the critical faculty for information as best we may
(bearing in mind the unreliable sensory process we all have) to guide us to the next round of stillness, experimentation, observation and questioning. Once a thing is judged you can learn no more from it. So the minute it becomes “Just like...” You have lost it. It is no longer AT but something else. That’s a big limiter, even if you like what you’ve got.

So when a person finally gets to a teacher having researched, and read about posture, the clinical trials as a treatment for back and neck pain, etc etc. Does that set them up to look for the moment when they recognise something going on, that is consistent with what they already think they know? “Eureka, two lessons and my back pain has gone! It is a wonderful treatment!” Or “Yes, I can feel you improving my posture!” You now know what I would answer to that. “Yes and No”, for all the above reasons.

In fairness though I should confess that I am in my 18th year of teaching. Between my, learning, training and practise shares that totals up to way over 1000 lessons. In truth after six lessons I had a very clear definition of the Alexander Technique. Today I would not presume. Also how the work is delivered when learning can colour what we might think we’re getting into. I find often that people define the technique by the reason that brought them to it, pain relief, pregnancy and childbirth, athletic enhancement, etc. or by the style in which it was taught to them; so if that was a postural style, which in the early days it mostly is, then AT is about posture; if a spiritual style it will be about something else. It behoves all of us as teachers to keep our work space as clean as possible from agenda and personal stuff.

So does the work change in time? It may. Mostly I find when folk have come to the limit of what the Alexander Technique seems to do for them; it is usually because they have put the limiter on it, themselves. What I have noticed is that the longer people practise with it the more they can do with it and are able to intervene in unwanted responses earlier and earlier so there is a shift in the Technique. Whether that is due to a different take on the work or whether the person themselves have changed, so the same Technique applies differently, who can say. It evolves as more a way to be, than a way to do. A teacher/ colleague once suggested this work should come with a health warning. “Caution: Alexander Technique may change everything that you think you think!” She may be right, but I would swap my changes because of it, for all the money in the world.