Inhibition Jones, 1973: 149, 150:

Alexander’s major discovery was not the “primary control” but the significance of inhibition in the intact organism. Inhibition is a positive, not a negative force. Some degree of inhibition is essential not only for a good life but for any life at all. Inhibition maintains the integrity of the responding organism so that a particular response can be carried out economically without involving inappropriate activity in unrelated parts….Inhibition is a physiological process which does not need to be conscious in order to operate. Bringing it up to the conscious level not only establishes an indirect control over antigravity responses but facilitates the learning of new habits and the unlearning of those that are old and unwanted.

None of the mechanisms of the Alexander Technique can function without inhibition (Jones, 1973: 149). Alexander (1932: 45) emphasized that preventing “the

60 misdirection that leads to wrong use and functioning” is the most important factor in dealing with harmful habits. The basic means for change lies in knowing how to stop, i.e. refusing to give consent to habitual, subconscious reactions to the stimulus for action (Jones, 1976: 83).

The mental conception of an act is followed by a mental process to decide whether to give or withhold consent to act (cf Alexander, 1932: 43). As most people have no reasoned conception of the direction that is necessary for satisfactory performance, their directions are based on a habitual and instinctive use of themselves. This instinctive direction tends to become more and more misdirected with time due to faulty sensory awareness, exerting a harmful influence on one’s functioning (Alexander, 1932: 44). Change only becomes possible when the process of inhibiting and directing is brought onto a conscious level (Jones, 1973: 150).

Many reactions, including not responding at all, are possible when a stimulus is presented for the first time. When a particular response is chosen and learned, and the process “drops below the level of consciousness, a ‘set’ will be established linking the stimulus with the response, which will then occur automatically whether it is appropriate or not” (Jones, 1976: 150). It is only when this process remains conscious that the original freedom of choice is not lost. As the set becomes ingrained, there is less tonic activity in both the sensory and motor systems in response to the stimulus to action. The result is “a habit which operates unconsciously (like an innate reflex) and which is resistant to change” (Jones, 1976: 150). While the purpose of the set is to make the reaction to the stimulus faster and automatic, it does not necessarily improve the response, and it can become an interfering influence, especially in complex, sequential activities (Jones, 1976: 178). This is particularly true when “concepts have become linked to wrong, maladaptive experiences” (Jones, 1976: 102).

Dawley, 2001: 7:

Just thinking about an activity engages the muscles in a habitual pattern of action. This anticipatory engagement interferes with activity. We have to intercept the link between concept and activity so that something different can happen.

61 Even though a set can be triggered very quickly after the stimulus to action is given, it is never immediate, and always “starts with a change of tonus or tensional balance in the neck and trunk and spreads from there to the limbs” (Jones, 1976: 178). By “stopping off”, or inhibiting the immediate reaction to the stimulus, it is possible to prevent the postural set from imposing itself (Barlow, 1973: 207). Through inhibition, the level of tonic activity in the nervous system is increased again, and as the operation of the habit is brought to a conscious level, freedom to choose a suitable response is restored (Jones, 1976: 150). “Inhibition, by eliminating the postural set, allows a non-habitual response to be made” (Jones, 1976: 150).

Coghill (as cited in Jones, 1976: 61) pointed out that the total behaviour pattern, involving the head, neck and back, included both “excitatory” and “inhibitory” components, and that the successful functioning of specific reflexes depended on the inhibitory factor. In response to a stimulus to move, inhibition allows the spine sufficient time to lengthen, thereby activating the antigravity reflexes and adding to the efficiency of the movement (Jones, 1976: 149).

Jones (1976: 151) submits the following hypotheses, based on his research, as being “consistent with established principles of physiology and psychology”:

1. The reflex response of the organism to gravity is a fundamental feedback mechanism which integrates other reflex systems.

2. Under civilized conditions this mechanism is commonly interfered with by habitual, learned responses which disturb the tonic relation between head, neck, and trunk.

3. When this interference is perceived kinesthetically, it can be inhibited. By this means the antigravity response is facilitated and its integrative effect on the organism is restored. (Jones, 1976: 151.)

All partial patterns, such as the use of the arms or hands, are regulated by the total pattern, or antigravity reflexes (De Alcantara, 1997: 46). “To eliminate a faulty partial pattern it is necessary to co-ordinate the total pattern that activates and regulates the partial one” (De Alcantara, 1997: 46). This has the effect of integrating all the reflex systems and making the body more efficient (Jones, 1976: 151). Inhibition means not to consent to a habitual reaction that causes a total or partial misuse of the self by

62 interfering with the reflex systems in the body, and it is the central point of the Alexander Technique (De Alcantara, 1997: 47).

The key to the process of change is not to attempt to inhibit misuse directly, but to inhibit end-gaining, the motivation that triggers misuse (De Alcantara, 1997: 49). In response to the teacher’s instruction, a pupil needs to inhibit both his or her own understanding of the action, and the eagerness to be right (De Alcantara, 1997: 49). By paying attention to the teacher’s verbal and hands-on guidance, the pupil is enabled to move in a more co-ordinated and balanced way. Through inhibiting end- gaining, the pupil thus gains a new experience, in which the movement often “seems to be doing itself” (De Alcantara, 1997: 49)1. This experience is reinforced through repetition, variations in the verbal and manipulative instructions and, eventually, by teacher and pupil taking turns to initiate the movement (De Alcantara, 1997: 48). Barlow (1973: 193) describes end-gaining as “a reflex action which (tends) to bypass the reasoning brain”. In end-gaining, a person reacts automatically on an input-output basis, “so that activity is directed towards satisfying the input as soon as possible, whether or not the habitual way of doing this is appropriate” (Barlow, 1973: 193). The following diagram is based on a similar figure devised by Barlow (1973: 193) to illustrate Alexander’s understanding of the stimulus/response psychology involved in inhibiting end-gaining behaviour:

Diagram 1: stimulus inhibition action

Input Throughput Output

reasoned direction

On receiving a stimulus (the input), the immediate muscular response must be inhibited, so that there can be adequate mental preparation (throughput) for the succeeding activity (output) (Barlow, 1973: 198). Through projecting the reasoned directions while inhibiting activity, it becomes possible to detect where unnecessary tension is created in the body in anticipation of the movement. Inhibition therefore does not imply passivity or unresponsiveness, but is seen merely as “a stage of

63 preparatory choice in which the eventual muscular USE can be decided on” (Barlow, 1973: 194).

De Alcantara (1997: 50) reiterates that inhibition should always precede action, in order to empty the pathways between mind and muscle of “the unchecked, automatic flow of habitual messages”. When this is the case, “activity becomes free from excessive tension, thereby appearing effortless to the doer and to the observer” (De Alcantara, 1997: 51)1. When initially learning to inhibit, it takes more time to stop and wait while projecting the mental directions, but with experience it becomes possible to inhibit “in motion”, without unnecessary hesitation (De Alcantara, 1997: 54). Inhibition is a process that not only precedes an act, but also continues during activity, in order stop any tendency to faulty use that may manifest itself while the action is carried out (De Alcantara, 1997: 53). Eventually, “coordinative, integrative thought” will set in motion “co-ordinated, integrated activity” (De Alcantara, 1997: 54).

Inhibition is not only useful for changing habitual physical behaviour, but also for mental and emotional states that invariably register kinaesthetically “as a change in the level of muscle tone before a reaction in the autonomic system has begun” (Jones, 1973: 13). By inhibiting any further increase of tension, and allowing the muscles in his neck and back to lengthen, Jones (1973: 14) found that he was able to stop the autonomic manifestation of an emotion from building into an explosive force, so that it “remained a potential for action but did not interfere with rational decision”. He concludes that the “intimate connection between Alexandrian inhibition and postural tonus” makes the Alexander Technique applicable to any learned response (Jones, 1976: 150).

While inhibition can bring about far-reaching and immensely rewarding change, it is also difficult to learn, as to inhibit means to delay the instant gratification of a desire (De Alcantara, 1997: 54). It requires self-denial to go against one’s instinctive desire to react in a habitual way. “Alexandrian non-doing goes right against our long- established wish to get results by doing something, and by being seen to do something” (De Alcantara, 1997: 54).

64 3.3.8 The kinaesthetic effect

Jones, 1976: 161:

In the Alexander Technique when a student is inhibiting his habitual response and allowing his spine to lengthen and his head to move in the direction of greater freedom, any movement that he makes will register kinesthetically as pleasanter, more efficient, and more desirable than his habitual movement. In other words, he is immediately rewarded.

This kinaesthetic effect of lightness and ease is the hallmark of the Alexander Technique (Jones, 1976: 5), and is reported by the great majority of people who have had experience of the Technique (Jones, 1976: 127). Through guided movement, the underlying feeling tone of a movement is changed (Jones, 1976: 2), resulting in a kinaesthetic effect of lightness that “can be demonstrated for almost any activity performed within the gravitational field” (Jones, 1976: 6). This sensory effect usually lasts for hours or even days after a lesson, affecting all subsequent movement patterns (Jones, 1976: 7). In contrast with the new experiences, reverting to habitual movements will feel uncomfortable, further reinforcing the new use that is being learned (Jones, 1976: 162).

However, the kinaesthetic effect of lightness does fade eventually, and a pupil will fall back into his or her old habits if it is not renewed on a regular basis: “The significance of the experience can be grasped only if it is followed up and used as a device for self-examination and for initiating a programme of change” (Jones, 1976: 7). The kinaesthetic experience of good use that one initially obtains during the lesson, becomes an aid to learning the Technique subsequently, and makes the process much easier (Jones, 1976: 2).

As the neck is allowed to lengthen, the Alexander teacher establishes “a new dynamic balance between the weight of head and the tonus of the muscles”, so that “the head behaves like inertial system which can move or be moved freely in any direction without a feeling of weight” (Jones, 1976: 5). For most people, the subsequent movements register kinaesthetically as being easier, smoother and lighter, as well as more pleasurable and effective (Jones, 1976: 5). When interference with the natural workings of the primary control is prevented (De Alcantara, 1997: 34), movements become more natural, and are not forced or artificially controlled. As it is free from

65 the excessive tension that may be present in habitual movement, this kind of “non- doing” feels easy, unencumbered and effortless, as though the movement were “doing itself” (De Alcantara, 1997: 51).

The purpose of Jones’s research was to identify the mechanism responsible for the kinaesthetic effect of lightness. By using quantitative measures and control groups, he was able “to construct an operational definition of the technique and suggest a mechanism to account for the changes” (Jones, 1976: 4). He proved that this subjective phenomenon (described in remarkably similar terms by impartial and unrelated observers), could be recreated under controlled conditions (Jones, 1976: 136), and through a series of experiments involving multiple image photography, he succeeded in identifying the objective physical conditions “that correspond to the kinesthetic experiences of lightness, smoothness, and ease reported during the guided movements” (Jones, 1976: 6).

In his experiments, the movement pattern always changed as soon as the head-neck relationship was improved, decreasing the feeling of weight (Jones, 1976: 145). He describes the structures involved in the efficiency of the head-neck mechanism in great detail (cf Jones, 1976: 145+), including reference to stretch reflexes, and the righting reflexes that “control the position of the head in space and in relation to rest of body” (Jones, 1976: 144). While the stretch reflexes give the body its tendency to lengthen from within, thereby adding strength and buoyancy to movement (Jones, 1976: 142), they “have no purpose or meaning in themselves, but are organized into an integrated whole” by the righting reflexes (Jones, 1976: 144). When the righting reflexes are functioning as they should, interference with the other reflex systems in the body is prevented (Jones, 1976: 185).

Jones concludes that the sensory experience of “moving lightly and easily against gravity” can be explained only in reference to the righting reflexes, which act as a central mechanism to integrate the antigravity responses (Jones, 1976: 144). Although the righting reflexes usually operate automatically and without conscious awareness, the Technique enables one to gain “conscious control of the proprioceptive component of the reflex mechanism” (Coghill, as cited in Jones, 1976: 62). As “a

66 better integration of reflex and voluntary elements in a response pattern” (Jones, 1976: 2) is obtained, movement becomes efficient, easy and light.

While the physical effects of the Alexander Technique are easier to describe and measure, Jones (1976: 12) believes that the psychological effects, including more mental and emotional control, are of greater importance. An increase in confidence and competence, as well the pleasure that comes from using oneself optimally, may be the greatest reward of the Technique. As a person’s sensory standard is restored, psychophysical growth and improvement become possible (Jones, 1976: 42). This allows for an increase in happiness, which Alexander (as cited in Jones, 1976: 42) defined as “doing well something that interests you”. As success is an essential prerequisite to happiness (Jones, 1976: 42), being able to do something that one had struggled with before, in a more coordinated and easy way, can only increase happiness and provide the self-motivation needed to change one’s use.

Jones, 1976: 163:

The technique is not a treatment; it is a discipline that, in order to be effective, has to be applied in the activities of daily life. The reward is an increase in competence and self-esteem and in the sensory satisfaction that accompanies self-knowledge and self-control.