User:Aliveness Cascade/Alexander Responsible

No definitive and authoritive statement of what "Alexander Technique" is exists.
This presents several challenges: Editors please be aware that:
 * 1) How to describe it, without prescribing what "it" is;
 * 2) How to present scientific research into "its" efficacy, when we cannot know what was actually being tested (unless this is particularly specified in the research). ...  and if it is specified, it should be noted that the results of that research can only apply to that particular specification of "Alexander Technique", not "Alexander Technique" in general.


 * 1) Alexander certified the people he trained as being "qualified to teach the technique outlined" in his books, but ...
 * 2) Alexander did not provide a definitive statement of his "technique" in his books!
 * 3) And the people he trained did not have a definitive consensus about it!
 * 4) A definitive consensus has not been established since.

It is a technique of what?
The challenge here is although it has been definitely stated to be an educational technique, the phrase "Alexander Technique" is also spoken of by Alexander teachers, authors, and proponents as a self-help tool. This unresolved dichotomy is present almost ubiquitously in modern sources on "Alexander Technique". How can the article address that?

An educational technique, or a self-help technique, or both, or what?
Alexander described what he did as a "psycho-physical re-education", and his "technique" was called "The Alexander Technique of Psychophysical Education (and/or Re-education)" ... "Alexander Technique" being an abbreviation of that. ("Re-education" is used in a sense very similar to how physiotherapists use it today, i.e. the retraining of a person's capacity for movement – with the caveat that Alexander's work was particularly aimed at the coordination of the whole "self" in activity – the mind, the senses, and the whole body together – and he took pupils whose problems originated from their misconceptions of how to move, or from bad habits of movement, as well as those whose problems were associated with injury or medical conditions – and indeed pupils who simply wanted to improve their coordination – and Alexander had his own ideas of how the whole self was co-ordinated, which he called "primary control", around which his practical teaching technique was focused). Even today, STAT, the original society of teachers of the Alexander Technique, in its articles of association, calls it "the Alexander Technique of Reeducation", abbreviating that as "Alexander Technique".

Sources:

"The technique known as the F. Matthias Alexander Technique is a teaching technique which the originator has been demonstrating in London for the past forty years" ~ Irene Tasker, one of the first teachers trained by Alexander.

And yet:

it is also commonly talked about as a self-help tool. For example, Elisabeth Walker, a teacher also trained by Alexander, called it a "thinking tool", as if "it" is a mental tool for helping oneself.

To complicate this situation ...

Alexander is said to have considered "Alexander Technique" to be an inappropriate name, as do some teachers today
"Alexander Technique" was considered to be an inappropriate name by Alexander, according to Elisabeth Walker, and it was also considered inappropriate by teachers he trained. Walker said "he (and others) never liked the word 'technique' but it seems to have been adopted"; and, Erika Whittaker, who was one of the first trainees on Alexander's first teacher-training course said she felt "technique" was very inappropriate, because it's not something you can learn and get good at, and then go away and do.

And yet Alexander not only used the word "technique" extensively in his writings, and he certified people to teach "the technique outlined in my books"

How can the article and its editors deal with the issues of what it is a technique of, and whether "it" is a single technique, or even a technique at all?
How can a decision be made on this which isn't original research, unless sources can be found which address these very questions!?

What we can do is make sure that the different senses of "Alexander Technique" are be presented in the article. And as editors we can ask ourselves what aspect or sense of "Alexander Technique" a source is referring to, and write content as faithfully – and helpfully – as they can in that regard.

My own feeling is that the statements of it being an educational or teaching technique, and in particular a technique for re-education, by Alexander and by people he himself trained as teachers, and by professional societies of teachers, have the most weight and authority, and precedence should be given to this angle in the structure of the article.

Opinion: This dichotomy and confusion seem to be a result of "muddy thinking" in the world of "Alexander Technique", and editors would do well to be alert to this.

Alexander's books contain quack statements; some of what Alexander claimed is quackery.
Alexander's books contain quack statements; some of what Alexander claimed is quackery.

This must be included.

Elements of the theory of the technique are psuedoscience.
For example Alexander's false equating of his key notions of "primary control" with Rudolf Magnus's "zentraler Körperstellungsapparat"; and Alexander's many self-contradictory descriptions of "primary control" – some of which are nonsense, and others are unfalsifiable due to their indefinitiveness.

Education or mis-education, or a mixture of both?
Well there is no doubt that "Alexander Technique" was primarily presented as educative by its founder, and is so today by the "Alexander Technique" profession, there is an issue of whether what Alexander "taught" and what the profession today "teaches" is truly and rigourously educative, or whether it contains elements of mis-education; and if the latter is true, how to best to present that within the article.