Doing Even Less

by Diana

Part 2 of 2

(See part 1 here.)

My last post was about how the Alexander Technique (AT) gives you less to do, but it was also about the fact that a subtractive solution (taking something away from what we’re doing) doesn’t come to us as easily as looking for an additive one: the endless search for a new exercise, or technique, or gadget that might be the solution to our problem.

I referenced a podcast, an episode of Cautionary Tales, and I wanted to return to that same episode again because there is more to explore. 

As an example of a subtractive solution, the presenter tells the story of the famous Köln Concert by jazz pianist Keith Jarrett. Jarrett had requested a particular piano for the performance: an especially fine Bösendorfer grand piano. But when he arrived at the venue, the piano that had been provided was a beaten-up practice version of the requested model. There were broken keys, some notes were out of tune and the pedals were broken, too. Jarrett said he couldn’t play on it. But for a series of reasons, the concert went ahead. I want to quote here what the presenter, Tim Harford, says:

“It is the concert of a lifetime. It is his most successful ever recording. And because of the manifest limitations of the piano, he was forced into playing … a much simpler melody, a much simpler approach to improvised jazz, than he would normally use. He was using a restricted number of keys. He was avoiding certain areas of the keyboard. He was keeping it quite simple and rhythmic.”

I’ve been listening to the Köln concert as I write this. It has exactly the beauty of simplicity described above.

The presenter continues:

“The point is, he could have done that on any piano! And yet he didn’t, because it never occurred to him… It was only when [the full range of] options were cut off … that he discovered this simple style which continues to be his most loved work.

“That’s an insight into the way that we don’t do it unless we’re forced to. We often need this disruption, we need this problem to occur, before we find a new solution, a new way of solving our problems, and that new solution in this case, and in many cases, actually involves doing less than we’ve done before.”

If you’ve studied FM Alexander’s books, as I and all ITM teachers have, I’m guessing your attention was caught by the words ‘we don’t do it unless we’re forced to’. Here’s what it brought to my mind:

“We all think and act (except when forced to do otherwise) in accordance with the peculiarities of our particular psycho-physical make-up.”

F. M. Alexander, Constructive Conscious Control of the Individual [p96, Mouritz 2004]

For those not familiar with FM’s writing and style, what does this mean? FM used the term “psycho-physical” to represent the complete integration of the mental and physical aspects of the self. He is saying that we go about our activities in the way we are accustomed to thinking and acting unless something (or someone) forces us to do otherwise.

And what do we do as ITM teachers in our classes? We get in your way. 

We get in your way in order to force you to find a new and simpler solution to the way you carry out your activity.

The extra quirks and distortions we add into activities are many and varied. Let’s take the example of walking. What makes our individual gait so distinctive? In part it’s the way our bodies are constructed. But in part it’s the idiosyncratic distortions we add.

It’s astonishing how many of us, when transitioning from standing to walking, want to lean backwards in order to step forwards. I have seen this happen in lessons. I have watched as the teacher places a hand on the student’s back, and asks them to take a step forward. Usually the student finds that, with the teacher stopping them from leaning backwards, they cannot step forwards. They may even accuse the teacher of stopping them from walking.

Now of course the student can step forwards. They believe they can’t because the teacher is stopping them from doing it in the way they are accustomed to. But this is what provokes the student into realising that they still have the freedom to step forwards. They simply need to find a new solution to the problem of how to step forward. The teacher has got in the student’s way, and they are forced to act in a way they are unaccustomed to. The student learns that the extra movement that they had believed was necessary to their activity was not necessary after all.

Now the question is, who cares? Who cares if people walk in a quirky way? Who cares if you want to lean backwards every time you step forwards? It’s a good question. But it’s important to remember that we are not teaching you how to walk with less interference. Or rather, we’re not just teaching you how to walk with less interference. We’re reminding you that there is a choice about how to go about even the most familiar activities. We’re teaching you how to stop wasting your time, energy and effort doing things that are not necessary. Imagine if you took that skill and applied it to everything you do. What would your life look like?

“What if, in everything you did, you used just as much effort as was needed, and no more?”

Don Weed