Marjorie Barstow, John Dewey and the Alexander Technique: A philosophical constellation, or “Variations of the Teacher’s Art” Author Cole, Amanda Jane Published 2016 Thesis Type Thesis (PhD Doctorate) School School of Education and Professional Studies DOI https://doi.org/10.25904/1912/1305 Copyright Statement The author owns the copyright in this thesis, unless stated otherwise. Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/10072/365373 Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au Marjorie Barstow, John Dewey and the Alexander Technique: A philosophical constellation, or “Variations of the Teacher’s Art” Amanda Jane Cole Bachelor of Medical Science (Hons), Monash Bachelor of Music, Melbourne Diploma of Modern Languages (German), Melbourne Zentrale Mittelstufenprüfung, Freiburg Master of Music Performance, Victorian College of the Arts The School of Education and Professional Studies Arts, Education and Law Griffith University Thesis submitted in fulfilment of requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy September 2015 i i ABSTRACT This project examines one strand of Alexander Technique1 pedagogy: the approach pioneered by the noted American Alexander teacher, Marjorie Barstow, the first graduate of F. Matthias Alexander’s training course. Barstow’s approach is favoured by performers because of its immediate and direct application to real and challenging situations. At the end of her life, from the 1970s to the early 1990s, she attracted thousands of students to her workshops, and many of her long-term students have since become world-renowned teachers themselves. Barstow’s detractors have argued, however, that because her teaching and teacher- training methods varied from mainstream approaches, she neither taught the Alexander Technique nor trained teachers. This opinion assumes a limited and even tendentious approach to interpreting Alexander’s legacy. One reason for the contrary opinion is the failure to view Alexander’s Technique in a wider intellectual and pedagogical context. I address this problem by situating Barstow’s pedagogy in the context of educational and philosophical theories being developed contemporaneously with and in line with Alexander’s own discoveries, theory and pedagogy. In particular, Barstow’s work is examined in relation to the “pragmatic” turn in philosophy observable in the thought of John Dewey, who involved himself directly with the Alexander Technique and its founder. I consider Barstow, Dewey and F.M. Alexander for the first time as educationalists, practitioners and thinkers who are linked by a common concern with the pragmatic ends of philosophy. To draw these links I rely on the philosophical method of “constellation research,” first developed by Dieter Henrich in the context of German philosophy to connect seemingly disparate strands of thought around a common set of problems and issues. I show that Barstow’s interpretation of the Alexander Technique has indeed evolved from the philosophy and methods of the originator of the technique and that this evolution is entirely in keeping with the originator’s aims, even if the teaching 1 For readers unfamiliar with the Alexander Technique, Appendix 1 gives a brief introduction and contains a glossary of terms. For the original and most authoritative description of the process of Alexander’s technique, I recommend the first chapter of his book, The Use of the Self. ii i methods may look different on the surface. As I also show, Barstow’s teaching is also consistent with several important aspects of Dewey’s philosophy. There is little in the Alexander literature that places Alexander’s philosophy and practice—or any other Alexander teacher’s philosophy and practice—into a historical, pedagogical or philosophical tradition. This study offers the first detailed historical analysis of what could be called the Barstow School of the Alexander Technique. The thesis also indicates how a teaching practice founded on the principles of Deweyan critical pragmatism may be considered an effective pedagogy in the performing arts. In shedding light on a hitherto under-researched feature of the Alexander Technique—its broader links with pragmatic philosophy—the thesis treads new ground in linking philosophical understanding with artistic practice and performance. iv           STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY This work has not previously been submitted for a degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the thesis itself.     _____________________________ Amanda Jane Cole v CITATION STYLE This thesis uses the MLA citation style, a style widely used in the humanities, especially language and literature. A citation in MLA style contains “only enough information to enable readers to find the source in the works-cited list, so that interruptions in the reading are kept to a minimum” (MLA 167). Typically, a citation will consist of the author’s last name and a page reference. If the author’s name is mentioned in the text, the page number alone appears in the citation. If there is more than one work by that author in the list of works cited, a shortened version of the title is given. Website addresses are no longer required by MLA style. v i TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT   II   STATEMENT  OF  ORIGINALITY   IV   TABLE  OF  CONTENTS   VI   LIST  OF  TABLES   IX   ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS   X   PUBLICATIONS  AND  PAPERS  2009–2015   XII   CHAPTER  1:  INTRODUCTION   1   DESCRIPTION  AND  AIMS   1   KEY  FIGURES  AND  SYSTEMS   3   THE  ALEXANDERS  AND  THE  ALEXANDER  TECHNIQUE   3   JOHN  DEWEY   5   MARJORIE  BARSTOW     6   PRAGMATISM  AS  A  THEORETICAL  FRAMEWORK   7   WHY  DEWEY  AND  WHY  PRAGMATISM?   9   BACKGROUND  OF  THE  PROJECT   13   BACKGROUND  OF  THE  RESEARCHER   14   SCOPE  AND  LIMITATIONS  OF  THE  RESEARCH   15   STRUCTURE  OF  THE  THESIS   16   CHAPTER  2:  THEORETICAL  FRAMEWORK  AND  RESEARCH  METHODS   18   2.1  METHODS   18   PRINCIPAL  METHOD   18   AUXILIARY  METHODS:  HISTORICAL,  QUALITATIVE,  PHILOSOPHICAL   22   2.2  DATA   26   TABLE  1:  SUMMARY  OF  THE  SOURCES  OF  INTERVIEWS   30   TABLE  2:  RESEARCH  QUESTIONS  AND  DATA  SOURCES   30   2.3  PRAGMATISM   31   HISTORY  OF  PRAGMATISM   31   ETYMOLOGY   33   WHAT  IS  PRAGMATISM?  SOME  ATTEMPTS  AT  DEFINITION   34   DOMINANT  THEMES  IN  PRAGMATISM   37   CHAPTER  3:  F.M.  ALEXANDER,  THE  TECHNIQUE,  AND  PRAGMATISM   40   3.1  ALEXANDER’S  BACKGROUND,  TECHNIQUE  AND  MAJOR  PUBLICATIONS   40   3.2  THE  STATUS  OF  RESEARCH  INTO  THE  ALEXANDER  TECHNIQUE   51   3.3  PRAGMATISM  IN  THE  ALEXANDER  TECHNIQUE   52   F.M.  ALEXANDER’S  PRAGMATISM   53   THE  NATURE  AND  LIMITATIONS  OF  ALEXANDER’S  PRAGMATISM   54   A.R.  ALEXANDER’S  PRAGMATISM   58   PASSING  ON  CRITICAL  PRAGMATISM   65   PRAGMATISM  OF  OTHER  ALEXANDER  TEACHERS   66   3.4  SUMMARY   68   CHAPTER  4:  DEWEY  AND  ALEXANDER   69   4.1  JOHN  DEWEY  AND  HIS  PHILOSOPHY   69   DEWEY’S  PHILOSOPHY   74   4.2  DEWEY  AND  ALEXANDER   83   4.2.1  MEETING,  COMMON  INTERESTS  AND  FRIENDSHIP   83 vi i 4.2.2  SUPPORT,  INFLUENCE  AND  SCHOLARSHIP   85   DEWEY’S  SUPPORT  OF  ALEXANDER   85   DEWEY’S  INFLUENCE  ON  ALEXANDER   88   ALEXANDER’S  INFLUENCE  ON  DEWEY   93   USING  DEWEY’S  PRAGMATISM  AS  A  METHODOLOGY  IN  ALEXANDER  STUDIES   97   USING  DEWEY  TO  HELP  THE  ALEXANDER  TECHNIQUE  “BECOME”   98   DEWEY’S  INVITATION  TO  ALEXANDER’S  FOLLOWERS   99   SUMMARY  OF  LITERATURE   100   CHAPTER  5:  MARJORIE  BARSTOW:  BACKGROUND,  INFLUENCES  AND   CONNECTIONS  TO  PRAGMATISM   102   5.1  BEGINNINGS  AND  EARLY  EDUCATION   102   5.2  ALEXANDER  TRAINING,  TEACHING  AND  INFLUENCES   106   A.  ALEXANDER  TRAINING  AND  THE  INFLUENCE  OF  FMA   106   B.  INFLUENCE  OF  OTHER  ALEXANDER  TEACHERS  (EARLY)   108   C.  ALEXANDER  TEACHING  AND  THE  INFLUENCE  OF  ARA   109   D.  ACQUAINTANCE  WITH  AND  INFLUENCE  OF  DEWEY   112   E.  THE  INFLUENCE  OF  LIFESTYLE  AND  GENES   116   F.  SUMMARY  OF  INFLUENCES   118   5.3  BARSTOW  AND  THE  ASPECTS  OF  PRAGMATISM   119   DECONSTRUCTION  AND  RECONSTRUCTION   119   FALLIBILISTIC  VIEW  OF  KNOWLEDGE  AND  THE  REPRESENTATIVE  CHARACTER  OF  THINKING   122   SOCIAL  AND  EXPERIMENTAL  CONCEPTION  OF  SCIENCE   125   CRITICAL  THINKING  AND  THE  METHODS  AND  INSIGHTS  OF  SCIENCE   125   FOREGROUNDING  OF  THE  SCIENTIFIC  PROCESS   126   CHAPTER  6:  FIVE  ANALYSES:  THE  PRAGMATISM  OF  BARSTOW   134   6.1:  THE  TEACHING  DILEMMA  (PROCESS  AND  FORM)   134   ALEXANDER’S  CONFUSING  LEGACY,  OR  THE  TEACHING  DILEMMA   135   DIFFERENCE  1:  THINKING/FEELING   136   DIFFERENCE  2:  RE-­‐EDUCATING  THE  SENSES?   136   DIFFERENCE  3:  PROCEDURES/POSITIONS/MOVEMENT   142   BARSTOW’S  ANSWER:  EMPHASIZE  PROCESS,  NOT  FORM   144   BARSTOW’S  ANSWER  1:  GENERAL  EMPHASIS  ON  PROCESS   144   BARSTOW’S  ANSWER  2:  THINKING  OR  FEELING?   145   BARSTOW’S  ANSWER  3:  MOVEMENT  OR  THE  STATIC  PROCEDURES?   148   RECONSTRUCTION  OF  ALEXANDER’S  LANGUAGE   158   PARALLELS  WITH  DEWEY   171   6.2:  DESIRE  AS  PART  OF  PROCESS   174   IS  THE  ALEXANDER  TECHNIQUE  A  HOW  OR  A  WHAT?   179   CRITICISM  AND  JUSTIFICATION   181   THE  IMPORTANCE  OF  APPLICATION  FOR  PERFORMERS   185   SUMMARY   185   6.3:  COMMUNITY  &  COMMUNICATION   187   DEWEY   187   BARSTOW,  COMMUNITY  AND  COMMUNICATION   189   BENEFITS  OF  GROUP  TEACHING  AND  LINKS  WITH  OTHER  IMPORTANT  FEATURES   198   BENEFIT  AND  COORDINATING  EFFECT  1:  THE  TRAINING  OF  OBSERVATION   198 vi ii BENEFIT  AND  COORDINATING  EFFECT  2:  CONSTRUCTIVE  THINKING  AND  COMMUNICATING  IN   CONSTRUCTIVE  LANGUAGE   205   BENEFIT  AND  COORDINATING  EFFECT  3:  INDEPENDENCE  AND  COMMUNITY   209   6.4:  CREATING  THE  CONDITIONS  FOR  LEARNING   213   MAKING  OUR  IDEAS  CLEAR   215   TEACHING  BY  EXAMPLE  AND  IMPLICIT  LEARNING   216   MEETING  AND  ACCEPTING   218   EXPANDING  FREEDOM   221   SUMMARY   222   6.5:  TRAINING  TEACHERS   223   6.6:  SUMMARY   230   CHAPTER  7:  CONCLUSION   232   LIST  OF  WORKS  CITED   242   APPENDIX  1:  A  BRIEF  INTRODUCTORY  LESSON  IN  THE  ALEXANDER  TECHNIQUE,   AND  GLOSSARY   261   THE  ALEXANDER  TECHNIQUE  ACCORDING  TO  MARJORIE  BARSTOW   261   GLOSSARY   268   APPENDIX  2:  PEOPLE  AND  ORGANISATIONS   275   APPENDIX  3:  DATA  COLLECTION   284   DATA  COLLECTION  EPISODES  (DCES)  AND  EVOLUTION  OF  DESIGN   284   EPISODE  1.  DUNEDIN,  MAY/JUNE  2010.  SHORT-­‐TERM  EXPOSURE   284   TABLE  1:  DCE1  PARTICIPANTS,  EXPOSURE  AND  CLASS  SIZE   285   TABLE  2:  DCE1  TYPE  AND  QUANTITY  OF  DATA   285   EPISODE  2.  DUNEDIN,  FEB  2011:  PROFESSIONAL  MUSICIANS  IN  ENSEMBLE   286   TABLE  3:  DCE2  PARTICIPANTS,  EXPOSURE,  CLASS/GROUP  SIZE,  DATA  COLLECTED   288   EPISODE  3.  SEATTLE,  NOV  2011.  LONG-­‐TERM  STUDENTS   289   TABLE  4:  DCE3  DATA  COLLECTED  AND  TRANSCRIBED.   290   EPISODE  4.  DUNEDIN,  FEB  2012.  LONG-­‐TERM  PERSPECTIVE   292   PRELIMINARY  DATA  ANALYSIS:  A  SUMMARY  (DCE1&2)   293   RESPONSE  TO  THE  WHAT:  THE  ALEXANDER  TECHNIQUE  AND  PERFORMANCE  COACHING   293   RESPONSE  TO  THE  HOW,  OR  TO  MADDEN  HERSELF   297   MISCONCEPTIONS   300   APPENDIX  4:  ATTACHMENTS   302   1.  APPLICATION  TO  UOHEC  (UNIVERSITY  OF  OTAGO  HUMAN  ETHICS  COMMITTEE)  (DCE1)  302   2.  INFORMATION  SHEET  FOR  PARTICIPANTS  (DCE1)   308   3.  CONSENT    FORM    FOR    PARTICIPANTS  (DCE1)   311   4.  LETTER  TO  UOHEC:  AMENDMENT  (DCE2)   312   5.  APPLICATION  TO  UOHEC  FOR  ETHICAL  APPROVAL  (DCE2)   313   6.  INFORMATION    SHEET    FOR    PARTICIPANTS  (DCE  2)   319   7.  CONSENT    FORM    FOR    PARTICIPANTS  (DCE2)   322   8.  ETHICS  AMENDMENT  LETTER  #2  (DCE3)   323   9.  INFORMATION    SHEET    FOR    PARTICIPANTS  (DCE  3)   326   10.  CONSENT    FORM    FOR    PARTICIPANTS  (DCE3)   328 ix APPENDIX  5:  PRIMARY  SOURCES  AND  WORKING  BIBLIOGRAPHY   330   MARJORIE  BARSTOW  PRIMARY  SOURCES:  COMPLETE  LIST   330   ALEXANDER  TECHNIQUE  WORKING  BIBLIOGRAPHY  (WORKS  NOT  CITED)   332   LIST OF TABLES TABLE  1:  Summary  of  Interview  Sources                 30   TABLE  2:  Research  Questions  and  Data  Sources             30   TABLE  1  (APPENDIX):  Data  Collection  Episode  1  Participants         285   TABLE  2  (APPENDIX):  Data  Collection  Episode  1  Data           285   TABLE  3  (APPENDIX):  Data  Collection  Episode  2  Participants  and  Data       288   TABLE  4  (APPENDIX):  Data  Collection  Episode  3  Data           290