Marjorie Barstow, John Dewey and the Alexander Technique: A philosophical constellation, or “Variations of the Teacher’s Art”

351 Pages·2016·2.401 MB·English

by  Amanda Jane Cole

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