From the category archives:


This is a transcript of a speech given by Dorothea Wallis to STAT in the 1950s.  Wallis argues that, “However important the part of conscious thought and control in the Alexander Technique, they are only aspects of a whole personality and not independent entities … for education is a matter of the whole personality.”


Note:  For posting convenience, “Habit and Choice” has divided the speech into three parts, and created sub-titles for each part. 


By Dorothea Wallis

 part I, part II

III.  End-Gaining

Unfortunately, one’s excessive tensions are not produced by one single emotional force which once discovered can be put out of action.  One probably can point to one source of all undue tension, a basic insecurity of the personality, but this rather than being one feeling is a condition, more or less unchanging, from which grow the many different emotional attitudes which produce tension.  To apply the Alexander Technique seems to be an endless task of meeting and disarming these many different attitudes rather than drastically discovering one “dragon” and staging a valiant fight to free oneself from it.  The one emotional cause – which has been called ontological or existential insecurity – is a fundamental state like being very tall or small.  One cannot alter one’s tallness, but if it makes one stoop one cannot stop stooping and admit one’s size.  Similarly, one probably cannot help being insecure but if it makes one afraid and hesitant, or aggressive at every turn and correspondingly “knotted-up” and tense, one can perhaps, by resolving the physical tension, stop taking the fears at their face value and recognize their underlying cause.  The insecurity, like the tallness, remains, but one can come to live with it rather than for it.

The ultimate source of tension may be recognized implicitly in Alexander’s concept of “end-gaining,” as the evil his technique is intended to counteract.  He urges that in whatever we do, whether getting out of a chair or hitting a gold ball, we must concentrate on the “means-whereby” rather than the end.  What do we do when we are “end-gaining” – which undoubtedly we do a lot of the time, from working for the “eleven plus” to making the right conversation at a party?  We are not so much concerned with what we are doing as with how we show up.  When Alexander’s player is intent only on his ball rather than the way he deals with it, his anxiety is to prove himself to be the good player that he needs to be to satisfy himself.  When the housewife strenuously scrubs her kitchen floor the strain comes from trying to live up to her own high standards rather than the difficulty of the job.

The “end” in “end-gaining” is always to reinforce a weak self.  “End-gaining” is characteristic of the insecure person – which perhaps most of us are to a greater or lesser degree – who finds it necessary to look for confirmation of himself in whatever he does.  To be “end-gaining” means to use oneself with excessive tension.  The tension arises from the effort of justifying or proving oneself in the world instead of simply being part of it.  If one can be in oneself and not forever reaching out to make up for what one is not, then one can do things for their own sake and does not “end-gain.”  In the end, Alexander’s standard for the balanced regulation of the body, to be and work at its best, is the standard of a whole, sound person.


This is a transcript of a speech given by Dorothea Wallis to STAT in the 1950s.  Wallis argues that, “However important the part of conscious thought and control in the Alexander Technique, they are only aspects of a whole personality and not independent entities … for education is a matter of the whole personality.”

Note:  For posting convenience, “Habit and Choice” has divided the speech into three parts, and created sub-titles for each part.



By Dorothea Wallis

Part One: I Hear the Bell

The ALEXANDER TECHNIQUE is designed to teach one to use one’s body rationally and economically instead of unconsciously and inappropriately.  It teaches the basic principle that there is a particular state or “body-scheme” in which the parts of the body are so related and muscular tension is so distributed that each part and the whole is enabled to be and to function at its best.

Alexander came to define this scheme by patient, concentrated self-observation, by finding out where the misuse of himself led to inefficiency and then freeing himself of his “bad old ways” by deliberately directing himself according to the rational scheme that made for the most effective manner of use.  His personal achievement in doing this led him to assume that to apply his technique was specifically a matter of conscious thought and control.

However important the part of conscious thought and control in the Alexander Technique, they are only aspects of a whole personality and not independent entities.  To treat them as such, and ignore the whole of which they are a limited aspect, would be to impair any process of re-education; for education is a matter of the whole personality.  Alexander’s emphasis on the unity of body and mind recognizes this, but his claim needs to be substantiated by a fuller understanding of the kind of changes his process of re-education involves in terms other than the strictly physical in which he himself gives a detailed account.

In “physical terms” it may be said that a central theme of the Alexander Technique is to learn to inhibit one’s usual reactions to any stimulus, and by ordering oneself into a relatively balanced position to react deliberately with only a suitable kind and amount of tension.  When I hear the bell ring, I may habitually be shocked into an apprehensive state of overall tension.  According to Alexander’s teaching I try to inhibit this reaction of my neck and head as the centre of control, direct it into a freer state and, having reduced my state of irrelevant tension, walk to the door.  These physical changes may be an observable fact, but such an amount of what happens seems to be so inadequate as not to be a description of a real person or real event at all.  It is a kind of theoretical construction which bears little resemblance to reality.  It is as informative a description of myself and my reaction to the door bell as a purely statistical description of a group of people is of their character as individuals and their relationships to each other.

The apparently simple incident of a bell ringing and my going to answer it, far from being a single incident – with a simple “stimulus-response” pattern – is one thread in a closely knit complex of time and place, myself, my past and expectations.  A single stimulus may be a useful idea, but does not exist in normal life (if ever even in experimental conditions) just as “a bell” can never ring.  If one is to understand what the Alexander Technique tries to do, it seems essential to recognize this.  The idea of a single stimulus and response seems to me as much an obstacle in the way of understanding the technique as in other ways it may be a help.  It is an obstacle because it makes incomprehensible the state of general tension in which I normally go to the door when the bell rings.  This can be understood when, instead of the bell being thought of as “a stimulus” and my reaction as “a response,” they are seen in their particular context as details of a total personal world.  Superfluous tension in one’s behavior is obviously not due only to poor judgment of what is demanded of one by the physical environment.  The way in which one uses one’s body is as much a response to one’s mental as to one’s physical situation.  To change one’s response to the inner situation may be far more difficult than changing one’s reaction to the external world.  It is much harder to admit feeling very small and vulnerable inside, but to decide not to stand huddled up and speak in an evasive way as one is accustomed to do, than it is to make the adjustment which is necessary when going from a steep to a shallow flight of steps.

part II, part III

{ 1 comment }

In November 1965, Marjory Alexander Barlow, first generation teacher and niece to F.M., delivered the Annual Memorial Lecture for STAT*.  This 6 part series is the transcript of that address.

*“In 1958, the Society of Teachers of the Alexander Technique (STAT) was founded in the UK by teachers who were trained personally by FM Alexander. STAT’s first aim is to ensure the highest standards of teacher training and professional practice.” (STAT website)


The Teaching of F. Matthias Alexander

By Marjory Alexander Barlow

(part I, part II, part III, part IV, part V)



Another aspect of traditional teaching worth mentioning is the necessity to live in the present.  It is a recurrent theme in the great mystical writings.  The Now is all that we have.  We cannot inhibit next week, direct ourselves tomorrow, or even control our reactions five minutes hence.  All this has to be done Now.  The fact that we find it so difficult to BE in the present, and to deal with the requirements of the present moment in the most appropriate way is, I might suggest somewhat fancifully, also mirrored in the way we stand.  How can we BE all present and correct, if our heads are driving back into the past, our bodies rushing forward into the future and only our feet all too firmly anchored in the Here and Now?

But you may say, “Let’s not be so gloomy about it,” and, of course, you would be quite right.  Nothing is achieved by gloom and heaviness.  As one of our students pointed out, “If there is a force of gravity there must be a force of levity.”

Frequently, when he was training us, Alexander would come into the students’ room, look around at all the earnest, serious faces preparing diligently for his class, and send us packing for a walk round the square saying, “That’s not the way to work, let’s have a bit of gaiety and lightness.”

One of the most endearing things about him was his capacity for enjoyment and his refusal to be serious about things which did not really matter.  He liked particularly jokes against himself and would tell them with great gusto.  He knew the meaning of the words “enjoy yourself.”

In 1946 my husband and I were on holiday in Brittany with Alexander and a South African QC with rather expensive tastes.  We were nearing the end of our stay and were awaiting, rather anxiously, the arrival of some travellers’ cheques belonging to the South African.  They did not come and, meanwhile, the rest of the party was supplying him with cash.

On the last day the cheques still hadn’t arrived and we had 1,600 francs between us to foot a large hotel bill.  After consultation we decided that the only thing to do was to send Alexander to the Casino in the hope that he would retrieve our fortunes.  We all went with him and stood behind his chair while he, with the greatest composure in the world, proceeded very slowly and diligently to lose every sou that we had.  As he remarked in another context, “You cannot change the course of Nature by primarily coordinating yourself.”

All ended happily enough as Alexander had made friends with a young French couple who were staying in the hotel, and they agreed to stand surety for us until we could collect the money from the nearest large town.

But to return to his teaching.  It is, like all important things, invisible and fragile, the heart and core of it I mean.  There is a nice little piece by Rilke which I can’t resist quoting, “This is the creature that has never been, they never knew it, yet, nonetheless, they loved the way it moved – its gentleness – its neck, its very gaze, calm and serene.”  I am also reminded of Bernard Shaw’s remark, “Alexander calls upon the world to witness a change so small and so subtle that only he can see it.”

Alexander’s teaching comes into being – it is born anew, only when someone uses it.  In this way it is like music, it is brought to life when someone plays it and makes the music manifest.

Alexander used to tell us that he wrote his books to ensure that a record of his work would exist if the teaching of it died out.  His hope was, that in this event, someone might come across the books and reconstruct the practical side of it.  Now, I know that these books come in for a lot of criticism.  It has always been so.  They are not easy to read and certainly they were not easy to write.  But there they are – the man’s own words – how he worked the problem out and what he thought his discoveries meant.

Francis Bacon said, “Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested.”

I suggest that Alexander’s books are obligatory reading for anyone who takes his teaching seriously.

He is accused of being incomprehensible.  I would like to quote a passage from a recently translated book by Merlaeu Ponty called The Phenomenology of Perception.  “The excitation is seized upon and re-organised to make it resemble the perception which it is about to cause,” end of quote.

I don’t pretend to know what the author means, but I’m sure he is trying to express something important.  It might even be worthwhile studying his books to find out.  So with Alexander’s books – they require study and hard application, given this they will yield up their gold.

Before the war I had a pupil who was home on leave from army service in India.  He had a course of lessons and went back to his unit.  Two or more years later he returned to London for a refresher course of lessons.  I congratulated him on the change in himself which he had brought about.  “Yes”, he said, “I have been working hard.  One thing has helped me more than anything else.  I keep Alexander’s books on my bedside table and read a chapter every night.”

The following day I told Alexander this story while we were having a training class.  He was silent for a long moment and then said thoughtfully, “Yes, and I would be a better man if I did the same.”

These then are the two aspects of Alexander’s teaching.  First as a means of allowing the natural laws of the organism to work without interference – as a means of giving back the birth-right of good use, which, as children, we all possessed.  Alexander said, “When an investigation comes to be made it will be found that every single thing we do in the work is exactly what is done in Nature, where the conditions are right, the difference being that we are learning to do it consciously.”

Ideally, the teacher has to be a craftsman in the use of his hands, a scientist in his adherence to principles which are subject to “operational verification” and an artist in conveying his knowledge to others.

The teacher’s responsibility for the continued existence of the work is heavy, especially if he trains other teachers, to ensure that none of the essential elements of the teaching are lost.

In the second aspect – the application of the work to deeper spheres of our experience – the division into teacher and pupil vanishes.

There is no end to work on oneself – here we are all in the same boat.

When Alexander was nearly 80 years old he said to me, “I never stop working on myself – I dare not.”  He knew that the only limits to this kind of development are those which we impose on ourselves.

He continued to teach within five days of the end, at the age of 86, and then, having refused all drugs which might deprive him of it, he achieved the rare distinction of being present at his own death.

Tonight we have remembered him – but the memorial that would please him best is that we should do his work.


In November 1965, Marjory Alexander Barlow, first generation teacher and niece to F.M., delivered the Annual Memorial Lecture for STAT*.  This 6 part series is the transcript of that address.

*“In 1958, the Society of Teachers of the Alexander Technique (STAT) was founded in the UK by teachers who were trained personally by FM Alexander. STAT’s first aim is to ensure the highest standards of teacher training and professional practice.” (STAT website)


The Teaching of F. Matthias Alexander

By Marjory Alexander Barlow

(part I ,part II, part III, part IV)



So far we have explored Alexander’s work in its application to our faulty muscular habits and general misuse of the body, and seen how we may build up a stable good use which is under our control.

Let us now examine some applications of his principles to other spheres of our experience, and see if we can catch some part of the vision of its importance which inspired him throughout his life.

He understood, as perhaps no one else has done, that here was the possibility of a different quality of living, which could help resolve many of the difficulties of life which we bring on ourselves through lack of awareness and control.  He was very modest about his part in the discoveries, and often used to say, “If I had not discovered the work some other poor chap would have had to go through all that, because the need for it is so great.”  This attitude is probably common among creative people.  Once the poem is written, the music composed, the painting finished or the scientific discovery made, the creation assumes its own life, and its originator feels a certain detachment towards it.

The Alexander Technique will work wherever it is applied.  It is not magic, but does its job at the point of application.  How deeply it is applied depends on the aims and wishes of the person concerned.  If the aim is to get rid of a pain in the back it will do so effectively by bringing into consciousness the “wrong doing” which is producing the pain.  If the aim is greater awareness of habitual reactions in other departments of the self, it will work there too, and by the same process.  We are all bound in the prison of habit.  We have habits of thought – unexamined fixed opinions and prejudices which determine our behavior without our realizing it.

We are also the victims of emotional reaction.  These are very powerful driving forces.

A young pupil of my husband’s, when she first realized the importance of these things, burst out, “Oh, I see, Dr. Barlow, this is a life-sentence.”

Alexander’s favorite way of describing his work was “as a means of controlling human reaction.”  Under this basic umbrella can be included every form of blind, unconscious reaction, and here we come to the whole question of self-knowledge.

The muscular bad habits of misuse harm only oneself – unconscious habits of thought and emotion harm oneself and other people, because they determine our reactions to everyone else.  It could be said that we use other people to practice our unconscious bad habits on.

The greatest misery and misunderstanding we experience is often in this field of personal relationships.  Of course, these inner emotional states are mirrored in the way we use ourselves – states of rage, anxiety and fear – to take only the most obvious examples – are there for the world to see by the unmistakable bodily attitudes.  This is also true of more subtle inner conditions such as depression, worry and hopelessness.  In some ways the constant and deep reaction-patterns are more obvious to other people than to ourselves.

I sometimes think that there is a wry sense of humour lurking somewhere in the background of the Universe permitting this tragicomic state of affairs, where certain characteristics of a person are known and clearly seen by everyone, except the person himself.

There is a thing known as “the state of the world.”  In whatever part of time a man’s life-span is set down there must always be large, terrifying problems, known as “the state of the world.”

In primitive times wild animals and marauding tribes were probably the main worries – apart from the weather; later, perhaps the plague, persecutions, lawlessness and lack of respect for human life.  In this things haven’t changed much – and always there is war.

An individual can do little about these large issues.  On a small scale, but nearer home, there is the problem of other people; most of the time they just don’t behave as we think they should.  Again there is little that we can do about it, although we waste an enormous amount of energy trying to make them alter.

Where then can we affect anything?  We have been told many times in the course of history, by wise men, that the chaos in the world is only a reflection of the chaos within us – writ large.

Alexander taught that there is one main field of work for each of us – work on ourselves to gain more light on our unconscious habits – work to use more constantly the one place of freedom we have, the moment of the impact on us of a stimulus, so that we increase the number of moments when we choose our reaction, instead of being driven by habit to react as we have always done in the past.  For this we must be there – present and aware, at the crucial moment, to inhibit before we react.

We have no freedom in dictating the state of the world, we have only limited control over the events that happen to us, but can develop control over the way we react to these events.

The freedom in our environment and in regard to other people’s reactions is also limited, but we can have some control over the nearest bit of our environment – ourselves.

Alexander used to chide us for always trying to change and control the big things instead of changing the small things that were in our control.  The inscription at Delphi, “Know thyself,” sums it up.

Down the ages we can see that all the real teachers of mankind have tried to make people understand this point; that change can only happen in the individual.  We know that fundamental new ideas have always started with one person and spread slowly and gradually as more and more individuals receive and understand the new knowledge.

The vision Alexander had of the possibility of individual evolution in the development of consciousness and awareness was the mainspring of his life’s work.  It is this aspect of his teaching that places him in the direct tradition of the great teachers of humanity.  It is this side of his teaching which could so easily get lost.  It is a not unreasonable supposition that many whose reported teachings have come down to us, also gave to people of their time practical techniques for carrying out the teaching.  If so, most of this has been lost and forgotten, and we are left with reports and writings which today often have little meaning for us.  It is interesting – apropos of all this – that a pupil of mine, a doctor, once remarked that Alexander had rediscovered the secret of Zen for our time.


In November 1965, Marjory Alexander Barlow, first generation teacher and niece to F.M., delivered the Annual Memorial Lecture for STAT*.  This 6 part series is the transcript of that address.

*“In 1958, the Society of Teachers of the Alexander Technique (STAT) was founded in the UK by teachers who were trained personally by FM Alexander. STAT’s first aim is to ensure the highest standards of teacher training and professional practice.” (STAT website)


The Teaching of F. Matthias Alexander

By Marjory Alexander Barlow

(part I, part II)



But to return to Alexander in front of his mirrors; he had now reached a deadlock.  He knew what was wrong; he knew he couldn’t DO anything to put it right.  He had exhausted all ways of trying to alter what was going on FROM THE OUTSIDE.

The next step was to begin the journey inwards to the central place in himself where the trouble really lay.  Along the route came the recognition that he could not trust his sense of feeling – that is, the kinesthetic sense of how much muscular tension he was using.  He found that what he could see happening in the mirror did not correspond at all with what he felt was happening.  Up to this time no one had questioned the reliability of this faulty guide which we all use in judging what is going on in the body – how much tension we are making – and also where any part of the body is in relation to other parts, and to the whole.  The kinesthetic sense works partly through the muscle-spindles in the muscles, as well as from receptors in the joints.  Muscle-spindles are tiny mechanisms whose function is to convey information from muscles to the higher centers of the brain about the state of muscles and to receive information back from the brain as to what the muscles should do about it.  However, if too much tension is being made in the muscle, there comes a certain point when this “feed-back” between brain and muscle is put out of action, and we can no longer feel what we are doing.  This is the scientific explanation of what Alexander called “faulty sensory appreciation” and this is the real “sticking point” and key difficulty of our ignorance of what we are doing with ourselves when we are wrong.  It makes clear why ordinary methods of putting things right without taking wrong feeling into account are likely to fail.

Alexander could not change anything by doing.  He could not trust his feeling.  He then saw that he had underestimated the strength of habit.  What he observed in the mirror was the end-result of disordered inner patterns lying deep in the nervous system.  And that these inner patterns of impulses, conveyed through the nervous system to the muscles acting on the bony structure and joints of the body, were operative perpetually, whether he was moving, speaking or sitting still.

In fact these inner patterns were him – insofar as his body was the outer manifestation of them.

The next step in the journey was taken when Alexander realized that the only place where he could begin to control the wrong habitual patterns was at the moment when the idea came to him to speak or move; the moment when, whatever state of misuse he was in, it would be made worse as he went into action.

He had reached the only place, and the only moment in time, where change could begin, or where he could have any control over the habitual patterns of misuse, which were dominating everything he attempted to do.

This place, or this moment in time, was the instant that a stimulus to activity reached his consciousness.  In the ordinary way, when a stimulus comes, we react to it in the only manner possible.  The response is made without thought – without any knowledge on our part of what we are putting into motion.  The reaction is the immediate response of the whole self, according to the habitual patterns of movement which we have developed from our earliest years.  We have no choice in this; we can behave in no other way.  We are bound in slavery to these unrecognized patterns just as surely as if we were automatons.

When Alexander reached understanding of this part of the problem he had found the key to all change.  He understood at last in what way he must work.

We have now followed him in his journey from the outermost manifestation of misuse, that is, the interference with the normal working of his whole body, resulting in the vocal failure, to the innermost point where he could stop this interference.

Let us now reverse the process and follow him on his way out again.

He had to make possible a pause or space between the stimulus and the response.

He decided to do this by saying “NO” to, or inhibiting, the immediate response.  This proved to be the cornerstone on which all his later discoveries were made, and through which later changes were made possible.  The word “inhibition” in this sense means the opposite of volition: withholding consent to automatic reaction.  It does not mean suppressing something in the sense in which it is used in psychoanalysis.

Having effectively prevented the old unconscious patterns from repeating themselves, and having made a break in the “perpetual motion” machine that he had become, Alexander then brought his brain into action by sending conscious, verbal instructions to the parts of the body which he had been unable to control before.

The first result of this way of working was to prevent the misuse of the head, neck and trunk.  He had to be content for a time to give himself a stimulus, refuse to respond to it, and give the conscious messages or directions without actually carrying out a movement.  This is the preparatory stage of what one might call “road building” or the “laying down of railway lines along which the train will eventually travel.”

In time he as able to continue the new messages during movement.

Eventually the old wrong inner patterns were replaced by the new ones resulting in the coordinated, trouble-free working of his body.

In this way he put to a new use a faculty we all have and use in ordinary life.  This faculty is intelligence, or the power of the brain to determine and direct what we wish to do.  This power he now turned to the management and control of the use of his body, so that the whole of it became “informed with thought.”

continue part IV, part V