How we breathe plays a crucial role in all this. I recall Walter Carrington telling us we should always remember this work began with a man with a breathing problem, and although we no longer refer to our work as respiratory re-education (FM’s early term for it) Walter would say: “If in giving someone lessons you do not in the process improve their breathing, you’re not doing your job properly.” Indeed, most accounts of having lessons with FM mention his frequent instruction to “allow the ribs to move” or “allow the ribs to expand and contract.” See for example Goddard Binkley’s diary pages 43 and 53; The Philosopher’s Stone pages 37, 42, 48, 53, 55, 58, 79, 90, 97, and 107.

If the ribs have become immobilized, as is often the case when the head and trunk are being supported/stabilized by superficial muscles clamping the torso and head, then our options for more than minimal breathing are very limited: we can either heave the whole rib cage up and down; or we can inhale with an excessive downward movement of the diaphragm, which in turn pushes the abdomen out and usually down.  Indeed in Part III of MSI, the section titled The Practice of Respiratory Re-Education, FM refers to the problems caused by an “unusually lowered diaphragm” associated with pulling in of the lower back and a disturbance of intra-abdominal and intra-thoracic pressure.

If our manner of breathing is one in which every inbreath pushes the lower abdomen out and down, and every outbreath collapses the head, neck, and thorax down into the abdominal region, there will not be much tone in the support musculature of the spine and no tone in the abdominal musculature (unless the tone is being artificially produced by deliberate attempts to hold there), particularly in the transverse abdominis, which, as we have seen earlier, is now considered to help support the lumbar spine by its action of helping to tone the thoraco-lumbar fascia.

In relation to use, how we breathe is an essential aspect of widening. FM’s definition of widening in the chapter called Illustration in CCCI describes it as a “re-arrangement of the bony structures of the thorax.” He adds that this will produce an increase in thorax capacity and a “striking increase in thorax mobility and flexibility.” Judging from ther verbal and written reports of first generation teachers and pople who took lesons with him, what FM meant by thoracic mobility and flexibility was the lateral movement of the ribs for breathing. It is interesting to note in this context, Goddard Binkley’s observation after he was invited during a lesson to feel the movement of FM’s lower ribs: “I was surprised by the amplitude of the movement, confined mostly to the back and sides.” (The Expanding Self, page 43.)

So the AT has a lot going for it in the context of these more sophisticated ideas of core support. Indeed, experienced teachers often notice that over a series of lessons it feels as if, under your hands, the student’s superficial musculature is spreading out under the skin, as if the “muscular suit” which had previously been shrunk and constricted in some places and slack in others, has been ironed out, spreading the tone more evenly throughout the suit. At the same time there is a dynamic of firm support up through the spine, stimulated from the base of support of the feet on the ground or the sit bones on a chair. For this to happen there must be an accompanying shift in breathing so that there is lateral rib movement with every breath, the body  no longer heaving up to inhale and collapsing down to exhale, and consequent natural accompanying movement of the abdominal muscles with every breath.

All of this sounds very compatible with the idea that automatic postural adjustments would be best organized in such a way as to maximize the stabilizing and postural support roles of the deeper spinal musculature. Our process of conscious inhibition keeps in check the force of habit which so often results in a slow deterioration of efficient general coordination. By consciously inhibiting, we preempt our central set and open our body schema (the internal representation of the body in the brain) to a reality check. Is my habitual way still the best way? And by consciously directing we keep affirming that we want the organization of our automatic postural adjustments to be in harmony with our physical structure by giving us an optimum compromise between stability for anti-gravity support and openness for breathing and movement. We are asking the freedom of the neck, poise of the head, lengthening of the spine and widening of the back to be priorities in the way our nervous system organizes our automatic postural support in all our activities. The power and simplicity of Alexander’s discoveries lie in this combination of inhibition and direction and its unifying focus on head, neck, and back rather than trying to isolate and exercise specific muscles.

A final factor that plays well for us is a new understanding of the proprioceptive role of muscles. Of course all skeletal muscles include their own proprioceptive system of muscle spindles which, often in collaboration with input from Golgi tendon organs, supply the sensory information that enables our nervous system to constantly regulate muscular responses. Some muscles are much richer in spindles relative to muscle size than others, and Alexander literature has often mentioned that the small sub-occipital muscles are exceptionally richly endowed with spindles. An internet search on this will show up articles speculating that these muscles probably function more as proprioceptors than as motor units since their small size and placement doesn’t give them the strength or leverage to play much role in moving the head on top of the spine. More recently, however, it has been reported that all the short, deepest lying muscles of the spine are similarly rich in spindles. To quote again from Human Movement (page 205): “Other deep muscles close to the spine are rotators, interspinalis, and intertransversarii. These probably have a proprioceptive role as they contain a higher percentage of muscle spindles than other spinal muscles.” This does not detract from the significance of the sensory function of the sub-occipitals from an Alexander point of view, but extends that significance throughout the length of the spine.

I suspect that when we take someone’s head on the table and apply that kind of gentle lengthening pull that seems to pass along the whole spine right to the sacrum, we may be stimulating the deep spinal muscles both with an increase in tone in response to gentle stretch, and also with an enlivening of proprioceptive information as the spindles respond to gentle stretch. The whole spinal support system would thus be tuned to provide more efficient and responsive support in upright activity. We can further encourage this in chair work so that the student can learn to continue this with his/her own inhibition and direction.

Dr. Timothy Cacciatore’s research ties in well with this. His Twistor experiment described in the latest issue of STATNews (Spring 2011) suggests Alexander training enhances postural stability without creating rigidity in the process. Dr. Paul Little of Southampton University in the UK, who designed and led the large scale study on the benefits of the AT for back pain, has announced a follow up study. In this his team will be measuring the balance and functioning of the lumbar multifidus musculature in low back pain subjects before and after a series of Alexander lessons with STAT certified teachers. It will be several years before we see results from a study on this scale, but it is encouraging to see how well we fit with the current thinking in this field. As a friend with qualifications in both physical therapy and the AT said to me: “They have all these sophisticated analyses of the problem, but we have the really sophisticated solution!”

Suggested Reading:

Increased dynamic regulation of postural tone through Alexander Technique training by T.W.Cacciatore, V.S. Gurfinkel, F.B. Horak, P.J. Cordo, and K.E. Ames, 2010 study published in Human Movement Science.

Spinal Stabilization: The New Science of Back Pain by Rick Jemmett, Libris Hubris 2011.

The Expanding Self by Goddard Binkley, STAT Books, 1993.

The Philosopher’s Stone edited by Jean M.O. Fischer, Mouritz 1998.

Coming up next: What is the importance of the neck and head?

When the concept of core support was  first popularized by Pilates teachers, many of us Alexander teachers (myself included) were very skeptical about it and tended to say things like: “Well, surely it’s obvious that the back supports the front rather than front  musculature (in particular abdominal muscules) supporting the back. Look at four-legged animals; the front hangs from the back.” However, on both sides of the argument understanding has become more sophisticated.

If you have ever worked with anyone who has very recently had major abdominal surgery or any other type of trauma to the abdominal musculature, particularly the lower abdominal musculature, it is clear that this impairs their postural and movement coordination. So those lower abdominals, specifically the transverse abdominals, have a role to play in supporting the spine. However, on the Alexander side it is gratifying to read the important role now ascribed to the deep muscles all along the spine, particularly multifidus. Here are some brief extracts from the most recent (2010) edition of Human Movement by Everett and Kell (page 204):

“Muscles with attachments on the spine have several roles…

1. Provide dynamic stability or control of the segments of the spine.

2. Help to produce large movements of the trunk and body.

3. Help to maintain posture.

“Muscles consist of different proportions of Type I and Type II fibers. Some muscles play a predominant role in stabilizing the spine and maintaining postures, while other muscles play a predominant role in producing large movements and powerful movements. However, it is important to remember that most muscles work together in a coordinated fashion, for example, helping to maintain posture while producing movement.”

Remember in relation to the previous post about the need to stabilize the head and trunk while moving, that “to maintain posture while producing movement” is not simply some aesthetic choice to look good, but an essential aspect of efficiency in movement. Walter Carrington used to talk about the difference between being a sprung weight as opposed to being a dead weight to illustrate this point. If your torso is a dead weight being propelled around the world by your legs, you are going to find movement far more effortful than the person who is a sprung weight, with spine optimized to provide dynamic anti-gravity support as the legs perform their dual role of postural support and movement. Walter’s favorite example illustrating the difference between sprung weight and dead weight was that of carrying a baby or very young child in your arms. When the child is awake, alert and looking out at the world with interest it seems much lighter than when it starts to fall asleep in your arms.

More from Human Movement by Everett and Kell (page 204):

“Sitting still is a dynamic activity… Even when sitting the muscles provide support for the spine and are constantly adjusting. Muscles that provide stability to the spine are in the main placed close to the vertebrae, for example multifidus. Other muscles that have an effect on the stability of the spine are further away, for example transversus abdominis, but have an effect on the spine via its thoraco-lumbar fascia.”

This reference to the thoraco-lumbar fascia reminds me that Dilys Carrington used to say that by practicing monkey with hands on the back of the chair, we were spreading and toning the broad sheet of thoraco-lumbar fascia known as the thoraco-lumbar aponeurosis. Her thought was that directing the release from the lower back out through the thighs (particularly around the gluteal muscles and along the backs of the thighs) that is part of the “knees forward and away” direction, we would be exerting a pull on that fascia from its bottom end; and by directing the tops of the arms away from one another we would be exerting a similar pull on the upper part and sides of the fascia via the attachment of the latissimus muscles which then insert into the very top of the humerus, the inner aspect of the upper arm. However. It is often apparent when practicing monkey with hands on back of chair that there is also a noticeable toning in the lower abdominal area in association with the opening up of the lower back. This would fit very well with the above observations about the connection from transverse abdominal muscles to the thoraco-lumbar fascia. Since that fascia is now considered to play an important role in giving support and stability to the lumbar spine, it’s no wonder that our practice of monkey with hands on back of chair feels like it has such an enlivening effect on the back and neck, i.e. the whole spinal system. As the deep musculature is toned by the demand of FM’s antagonistic pulls, using gravity to encourage head, pelvis, and knees to be going away from each other while maintaining length on the spine, the larger, more superficial movement muscles are gently spread out through the back and front of the torso. This combination of even, elastic spread through the torso, and particularly through the back, together with firm, dynamic support along the spine, is a particular feature of the Alexander Technique. It allows us to be responsive and adaptive to the demands of movement and breathing, while optimizing the intrinsic springiness of our whole structure, especially the spine. Meanwhile the elastic spread of the larger, more superficial musculature, much of which connects the arms and legs into the back, prepares this musculature for vigorous movement whenever that is called for. I think this is probably what Patrick Macdonald was referring to when he wrote in his book The Alexander Technique: As I see It (page 82):

“With practice, directions become quite different from what the new pupil at first conceives them to be. One of the results is that the body, after it has been frequently consciously directed, takes on a particular texture or tone. This tone can be recognized by an experienced pair of hands. I call it feeling the flow of a pupil’s body, or feeling the life in a body, and it is to get our pupils to produce this actionless activity in themselves that much of our efforts, as teachers, are directed.”

Suggestions for further reading:

Human Movement: An Introductory Text, by Tony Everett and Clare Kell, Churchill Livingstone, 2010.

Therapeutic Exercise for Lumbopelvic Stabilization by Carolyn Richardson, Paul Hodges, and Julie Hides, Churchill Livingstone, 2004.

When I was first around the Alexander world, in the early to mid 1970s, a description I sometimes heard was that the Alexander Technique is a “pre-technique.” In a way that relates to what I wrote in the first post of this series on Explaining the AT.” There I was talking about “general coordination” underlying and preceding all specific coordination for learned skills such as playing sports or musical instruments, or driving a car or using a computer keyboard. Similarly, the AT could be said to be a technique you employ before you embark on any task or skill: a pre-technique in that it’s concerned with how you get ready for action, how you get set.

Conveniently for us, it just so happens that a new concept has emerged in the scientific study of the neurophysiology of posture and movement, a concept called “central set.” Here’s a description of central set from a book written for physical therapists; it follows a passage explaining that relying on feedback as we move and perform tasks is a relatively slow process, and therefore we also make use of anticipatory control:

“Anticipatory control is a process in which, in a known or commonly experienced situation (when the likely perturbations have been learned), signals for postural compensation and modification are sent before (in anticipation of) receipt of sensory information that the intervention is actually required. Anticipatory control occurs during most of our regular daily activities (e.g. writing and stepping), reducing movement execution times considerably and therefore increasing the efficiency of the task effected… Anticipatory control is effected by muscle synergies and these synergies are the same as those utilized by postural control feedback systems… Researchers have now confirmed that postural muscle synergies are preselected in advance of planned action when that action is serial, expected and/or practiced. The process of this central preselection is known as central set… The central set therefore reduces the risk of our over- or under-recruiting postural control-related muscles, thus increasing our postural efficiency.” (From Human Movement by Everett and Kell, 2010)

As you can see from that description, it is quite normal, and indeed desirable for efficient movement, that we employ our central set for many familiar activities. It is part of what enables us to perform regular tasks in a relatively automated way thereby freeing our consciousness from having to be constantly preoccupied with the detail of every movement. But clearly from the above description we can see also that central set is based on our past experience, indeed it is probably an aspect of the body schema discussed in Post 3 of this series – the internal representation in the brain/nervous system of our body and all it’s movement potential, which again is at least partly built up from past experience. So here we are back with something close to F.M. Alexander’s “sensory appreciation” or “kinesthesia,” which is based on our habits (past experience) and can become faulty or “debauched.” Using the more modern terminology, our body schema and therefore our central set can become  less than optimal as a guide to efficient general coordination, and therefore interfere also with specific coordination in performance skills.

Let’s try to make this more understandable by taking a concrete example of an everyday life situation: climbing stairs. Alexander experience alerts us to the fact that while walking along level ground towards the stairs we will already be making preliminary muscular adjustments preparatory to climbing the steps, and these adjustments will continue and perhaps increase during the act of going up each step. Now supposing our habitual pattern, built up from many years of accumulated experience, includes pulling the head and upper body down into the lower body and hips as we try to push ourselves up from each step with a strong effort from the legs. Looked at from the outside this is somewhat counterproductive as we are fighting against ourselves, pulling ourselves down even as we are trying to push ourselves up. But this kind of habit can become so familiar that we are no longer conscious that there is anything counterproductive about it or that there is any alternative.

Part of what is happening is that the head, neck and torso do need to be stabilized as we shift our balance and move from step to step. This is necessary and normal to ensure that we don’t wobble all over the place with each step. But it would be very desirable if this stabilization could take place in a way that helped transfer the upthrust from the propelling foot and leg on up through the spine and head to maximize the intrinsic, firm, anti-gravity springiness of the whole body in this upward motion against gravity. In this way the spine, and all its associated supporting muscle and connective tissue, is optimally performing its functions as the central support structure of the whole body and the harmonious connector of body parts, smoothly transferring force from one part (in this case one foot and leg) through the entire body without wasting or inefficiently opposing this transmission of energy.

In Alexandrian terms, the action of putting one foot on a step and applying the necessary push to step up is something we have to “do”; we can choose to do it or not to do it and we can choose how quickly or forcefully to do it. The associated shifts of muscle tone throughout the rest of the body happen automatically, they are what would now be called “anticipatory postural adjustments” and  “automatic postural responses” (collectively referred to as postural regulation or postural control) and are controlled by our habitual central set mediated by our body schema. In Alexander terms we do not “do” these postural adjustments, they do themselves. However we can influence them if we wish; in fact we are influencing them all the time with our expectations, thoughts, and intentions. The thought that I’m tired and have a heavy bag to carry will influence how my central set prepares me for the effort of climbing the stairs, and probably influence it negatively in increased effort translating into more pulling myself down to push up. On the other hand, I could say no to those thoughts (inhibition) and consciously decide (direction) that I’d really like my neck muscles to release upwards so they don’t drag my head down towards the steps, and consciously ask (direct) my back and trunk muscles, as they firm up to stabilize me during the movement, to do it in such a way that I’m lightening up through my spine and keeping my back open for free movement of my ribs for breathing. In other words neck free, head forward and up, back lengthening and widening.

So the directions are not something that I “do”; they are a means of consciously influencing automatic shifts in muscle tone throughout the body that precede and accompany all activity. If my past experiences have built up in me a central set that tends towards a predominant collapse of head towards trunk  and some parts of the trunk into the low back and hips, and/or an overly rigid bracing of some other parts so that they are less available for movement if necessary (all of which compromises our natural anti-gravity springiness); then conscious inhibition and direction can help steer those automatic postural adjustments in a more efficient direction. Knowing that some shifts of muscle tone are inevitably going to take place as I climb the steps, and that preparations for that will already be happening as I approach the steps, I use conscious intention to ask for these tonal shifts not to drag me down and make the task harder but to take place in a way that lightens me up. I am helping to make better use of the potential springiness of my whole structure to make movement lighter and easier as my muscular energy becomes more coherent, everything working together to aid me in the direction I want to go in rather than fighting against myself. Referring back to Post 3 in this series, we can say that if I stop doing the wrong thing and ask instead for automatic adjustments and responses that will keep me closer to my natural resilient length and width, the responses that emerge will be more in harmony with the structure of my body.

In this one simple example we can find aspects of doing and non-doing, inhibition and direction, faulty sensory appreciation, the influence of thought or intention on coordination, and primary control in the sense that I am especially interested in the organization of neck and back muscles that will be involved in stabilizing and supporting my head and trunk. And we can see how all that fits beautifully with modern concepts such as anticipatory postural adjustments, central set, automatic postural responses, and body schema.

Suggestions for further reading:

Human Movement: An Introductory Text, by Tony Everett and Clare kell, Churchill Livingstone, 2010.

Improvement in Automatic Postural Coordination Following Alexander Technique Lessons in a Person With Low Back Pain, by Cacciatore TW, Horak FB, Henry SM. Physical Therapy, Volume 85, Number 6. June 2005, page 565.

Magnus was experimenting on “decerebrate” cats and other animals; in other words the upper parts of their brains had been rendered non-functional. In this situation very visible responses were apparent to changes in the attitudes of the head and neck. These are the tonic neck and labyrinthine reflexes which alter flexor or extensor muscle tone in the limbs in very specific ways. Detailed accounts of this can be found in more recent literature, for example in the two books by Dr. Tristram Roberts: The Neurophysiology of Postural Mechanisms and Understanding Balance. Dr. Roberts gives examples of how these reflexes match up with common movement patterns in 4-legged creatures such as cats and horses, the horse’s head and neck lifted up preparatory to jumping a fence, for example, preparing the limbs for the powerful push-off from the hind legs. Magnus himself gives the following example with cats:

“A cat which sees some food lying on the ground flexes the head in the ventral direction, and this causes the fore-limbs to relax so that the snout is moved towards the food;  but if a piece of meat be held high up in the air the optic stimulus causes dorsiflexion of the head.  This evokes strong extension of the fore-limbs without marked extension of the hind-limbs.  The body of the animal is not only focused on the meat, but is also brought into a position which is optimum for the springing reflex, so that by a strong sudden simultaneous extension of the hind-limbs the animal can reach the meat.”

In 4-legged creatures these tonic reflexes do seem to play a significant role in adult movement, perhaps because the animal’s neck and head is out in front of its points of support from the 4 limbs, and the fact that all its movements are oriented in the direction of its head and spine. Human movement, however, is more complex. Our spines point upwards even as we move forwards and we do not need to get our mouth to things to eat, drink, or explore since we have hands to interact with the world. So these kinds of tonic neck and head reflexes, while sometimes apparent in human infants in the first months of life, quickly disappear as they become integrated into more flexible responses. They are therefore part of a group of reflexes collectively known as “primitive reflexes” which are an indication of serious problems if they persist in infants or re-appear later in life.

Other reflexes studied by Magnus include righting reflexes (also known as righting reactions) and positive support reactions, which appear from 3 to 8 months or so in the infant’s life, after the “primitive reflexes” have been integrated with more flexible movement patterns. These seem to be important building blocks helping the child develop towards full upright posture. It’s as if they give a starting point so the child is not left to rely on pure trial and error in a vacuum, so to speak. The righting reactions allow the infant to regain normal upright orientation of its head, and of its head and body in relation to each other, after any movement that displaces it. The positive support reactions are part of the process of establishing enough tone in the extensor muscles of the limbs and trunk for the child to support itself (at birth there is a predominance of flexor tone). But these reflexes or reactions are also gradually subsumed into more flexible balance and postural responses often labeled “equilibrium reactions” (or “responses”). The shift in terminology from reflexes to reactions and responses corresponds to a shift from the stereotyped stimulus-response of a reflex to the highly adaptable, context-dependent behavior that we demonstrate as normal upright humans. In recent years it has become apparent to researchers studying this subject that reflexes, which require an external stimulus to evoke the predetermined response, cannot fully account for the coordination of posture and movement. Here is a quote from one of the key figures in this development, Viktor Gurfinkel, from his 1994 paper The Mechanisms of Postural Regulation in Man:

“However, the main problems of postural regulation turn out to be much greater than just the maintenance of the body in an invariable position in space. They include the adaptation of posture to the anticipated movement and maintenance of balance during locomotion and other forms of movement. But even the simple maintenance of vertical posture cannot be reduced to a set of local stretch reflexes. Even if it assumed that this mechanism is the main one in maintaining the given joint angles, many questions remain unconsidered:

1. What mechanisms set and form the initial posture that serves as a reference for the correcting mechanisms?
2. How do movements requiring changes of initial posture or accompanying its disturbances proceed against the background of these stabilizing mechanisms?
3. In what way is the coordination of the numerous posture-correcting reflex chains achieved in a multi-element system?

“Finally, to regulate the position of the body relative to the vertical the nervous system must have its internal representation.

“Such a wide spectrum of postural regulation tasks can hardly be accomplished by a simple control system based exclusively on reflex reactions. In the last two decades concepts have appeared on postural ‘synergies’, ‘strategies’, and ‘central programs’ in which a significant role in postural regulation is assigned to the work of central mechanisms (see Massion Movement, posture and equilibrium: interaction and coordination, 1991).”

In the next post in this series I will attempt to look at how these new ideas of internal representation (also known as “body schema”), synergies, strategies, and central programs actually fit very well with some key features of the Alexander Technique, enhancing its value as an educational process.

The existence of righting and positive support reactions as starting points in the development of upright posture does, however, point to an important aspect of general coordination. Jean Massion refers to this in a paper called Postural Control Systems in Developmental Perspective (1998, p. 469) where he notes that in the first few years of life the development of balance and movement coordination in children is very much “top down,” i.e. oriented around the balance of the head which, in small children is a greater proportion of the body weight than it is in an adult. At around the age of seven, a new strategy appears, organizing balance more from the “bottom up,” i.e. oriented around the balance of the whole body on its base of support, and these two strategies need to be integrated. Indeed in teaching and practicing the Alexander Technique we are continually dealing with the conscious direction of the head and neck (“top down”) and integrating that with the stimulation of anti-gravity tone through the legs and spine which comes from the contact of feet on the ground or seat on a chair etc. (‘bottom up’).

This is the essence of chair work: coordinating the neck muscles to support the head, the back muscles to support the trunk, and the leg muscles in their dual role of both supporting the body from the ground up and enabling us to move about the world. And the most efficient strategy for this, or the most efficient synergy of postural support with movement, is when the supportive tone maintains the full, resilient length of the spine without locking the head into the top of the spine and without compromising the breathing by gripping the torso in such a way that ribs and diaphragm are restricted, particularly in the back and sides. Which could be re-phrased as “Neck free, head forward and up, back lengthening and widening.”

For further reading, along with the Gurfinkel and Massion papers already quoted, have a look at the following.

Dr. Tim Cacciatore’s paper Science and the Alexander Technique in Direction Journal vol. 2  issue 10.

Jean Massion et al Why and How are Posture and Movement Coordinated? 2004.

Alain Berthoz The Brain’s Sense of Movement, Harvard University Press 2000, esp. chapter 11.

How does all this work? When I was training as an Alexander teacher in the mid-1970s, a popular idea among teachers was that since the weight of the head is not evenly balanced on top of the spine but instead had a forward bias, release of the muscles at the back of the neck would cause the head to rock forward and this in turn would stretch the neck muscles which would reflexly tone and support the weight of the head. In some way never clearly explained this was assumed to set off a chain of stretch reflexes all the way down the spine to support the trunk. These days I see a number of problems with this explanation:

1. Although we like to say to our students that there isn’t a correct head position, this explanation does seem at first glance to contradict that. (Note: we will see later a different explanation of why in some situations head angle or position makes more of a difference than in others.)

2. There are situations where releasing the neck and directing the head and back have a considerable impact on general coordination, but where gravity is not taking the head forward and thereby stretching the upper cervical muscles. Swimming front crawl, for example, where the weight of the head is supported by the water as the neck is released. Or lying on one’s side with the head on a pillow, where gravity is going to take the head into the pillow rather than forward of the spine.

3. The whole endeavor of explaining human upright posture as a series of reflexes has been largely abandoned by scientists as inadequate to explain the variability and adaptability of human postural responses. The reflex model is associated with the pioneering work of the British pioneer of neurophysiology Sir Charles Sherrington (1857-1952), a near contemporary of Alexander. Wonderful work in its time, but like all scientific work others build on it, extend it, and find flaws in it. If you simply Google “Limitations of the Sherrington reflex model of posture” you’ll find material to read on this subject. Or a good summary is a paper called Why and How are Posture and Movement Coordinated by Jean Massion et al, published in 2004.

In his final book The Universal Constant in Living (UCL) FM writes “I had found a way by which we can judge whether the influence of our manner of use is affecting our general functioning adversely or otherwise.”  In line with this quote I would prefer to view the freedom and poise of the head on top of the spine as being at least as much a criterion as a cause of good use, or improved general coordination. Modern theorists and experimental scientists studying issues of posture sometimes talk about it in terms of organizing degrees of freedom. Put very simply this means that since we have many flexible joints not only in our limbs and their attachments to the trunk, but also along the axial column of the spine, maintaining upright posture requires strategies for limiting movement at these joints so that we don’t continually buckle and collapse. However we don’t want to do this in such a way that we rigidify ourselves and make movement and breathing difficult. A phrase often used by Walter Carrington in my time around him comes to mind: we need ‘elastic bracing”, but not “rigid bracing”.

How could we judge whether we, or someone else, are achieving something close to elastic bracing? Well, the criteria are obvious. If you can come easily up to your full natural height with the full natural resilience of your spine, and if you can achieve that without locking your head on the top of your spine and without restricting the movements of your diaphragm and your ribs (especially at the back) for breathing, you are well supported without compromising good movement and breathing; in fact you are demonstrating good general coordination. In this way the freedom of the neck, poise of the head, and openness of the back are both a means of working towards optimum synergy of postural support, movement and breathing, and a criterion of assessing how successful we are in that process

Alexander’s four books also do not communicate well to a twenty first century reader. However in FM’s second book, Constructive Conscious Control of the Individual (CCCI), which he also considered his best, he makes a very helpful distinction between “coordination on a general basis” and “coordination on a specific basis.” Most people think of coordination in relation to specific skills: playing a sport or a musical instrument for example. But that is coordination on a specific basis. General coordination is a pervasive quality that we bring into every specific skill or even the most mundane of our activities. It is touched on simplistically when sports trainers exhort their students to pay attention to their “form” as they execute a specific exercise. But this is often little more than a rather crude idea of maintaining body alignment. If we look more deeply into this we could say that the main muscles of the body (the skeletal muscles) have three basic functions to perform:

1. They assist in holding us up, giving us postural support in opposition to gravity. A skeleton cannot stay upright without muscular help.

2. They move us around, enabling us to interact with the world around us and with other people.

3. They “breathe” us. Although the physiological process of respiration takes place in the lungs, it requires the musculature of the diaphragm, thorax etc. to move air in and out of the lungs.

These three functions should operate in harmony with each other, synergizing so that each facilitates the others. Indeed that synergy can often be observed in small children, although we shouldn’t assume that all small children are perfect in this regard. (As with all talents and functions there is variability of general coordination among children.) But in most adults the three basic muscular functions of postural support, movement, and breathing are more often getting in each other’s way rather than facilitating each other. Collapsed or rigid habits of posture are restricting movement and breathing; awkward habits of movement are interfering with optimum postural support and breathing; and habits of restricted breathing are limiting movement and postural support.

How these three functions operate together could be called, echoing FM in CCCI, “general coordination” to distinguish it from the specific coordination of, say, the hands and fingers to play the piano, or the hands and eyes to play tennis. In Alexander jargon it largely corresponds to use but is somewhat easier to explain. So we could say that F.M. Alexander, in the course of trying to overcome his own issue with the specific coordination of his voice and breathing, came upon the realization  that he needed to consider the larger issue of his general coordination, the synergy (or lack of it) of postural support, movement, and breathing. That would seem a very daunting challenge to tackle, were it not for another remarkable observation that he made. In the course of observing himself, he wrote that he realized that “a certain use of the head in relation to the neck, and the head and neck in relation to the torso and the other parts of the organism… constituted a primary control of the mechanisms as a whole…”

Now the term primary control, and its description as the relationship of head, neck and back, also do not usually communicate well. With regard to a head, neck, back relationship people may be inclined to think “Well, we all have a head, a neck, and a back, and yes they are related to each other. So what’s the big deal?” And the term primary control can seem to suggest some amazing control system embedded within the nervous system but hitherto unnoticed by anatomists and physiologists. So let’s see if we can find another way to talk about it.