Fundamentals - Playing at Inhibition

To begin our feature on mind-body fundamentals, we decided to start with what we consider to be the most fundamental concept in the Alexander technique; Inhibition. The concept of inhibition is by no means unique to the Alexander technique, in fact it is fundamental to the development of many skills and essential in the changing of any habit.

Yet though it is present in some form in all mind-body disciplines, the Alexander technique might well claim to take this idea the most seriously as well as express it most formally. However, the question of what inhibition is, is still a topic of debate. Before we go on then, let’s be clear about what is meant by inhibition. Here is a common dictionary definition.

in·hi·bi·tion
1 a : the act of inhibiting : the state of being inhibited b : something that forbids, debars, or restricts

2 : an inner impediment to free activity, expression, or functioning: as a : a mental process imposing restraint upon behavior or another mental process (as a desire) b : a restraining of the function of a bodily organ or an agent (as an enzyme)

Because many people have negative associations with the word inhibition, the common definition is commonly dismissed as being something other than what Alexander meant. Inhibition is understandably seen as a form of restriction and so new meanings for the word are variously conjured up to avoid these associations. Indeed, when one looks at definition 1a “an inner impediment to free activity” or 1b “something that forbids, debars or restricts”, it is easy to see why it sounds like something that we’d wish to avoid in ourselves. If we think about it though, does the above describe anything more than simple self control?

In the paper “Self-Control, A Function of Knowing When and How to Exercise Restraint” recently published by Current Directions in Psychological Science, this model is proposed for the process of self control:




In considering this model, we see that in Stage 1, the “conflict identification” phase, if a self-control conflict is not identified, a lack of self control (indulgence) is the only other possibility. If the conflict IS identified though, we are free to either exercise self-control, or go ahead and indulge anyway.

This situation is obviously similar to the situation one finds themselves in when facing any stimulus, however the model needs some small adjustments:




Here we see that in Stage 1, which we have called the “unconscious response” phase, there are again only two possibilities, to inhibit or to react automatically. If there is behaviour at this stage, it is not the result of a choice but of a lack of inhibition. There is no time for the conscious mind to intercede and allow us to choose a path, choice is only possible in Stage 2.

In Stage 2, we are free to act as we like. We can carry out some new activity, continue with the original activity, or simply stop. This freedom is not present in Stage 1 and exists precisely because of the influence of inhibition. In other words, we are free to stop only because inhibition has already taken place.

So why do we believe this model? Why do we believe that inhibition is not, cannot be, a choice? The most compelling argument for this viewpoint comes from Jeff Hall’s excellent blog post, "Can we define 'inhibition'?" Here, Jeff points out the fundamental problem in trying to stop before we respond unconsciously.

“what is the point at which the inhibition - the saying no - is applied? Think of an actor jumping off the stage. Where was she when she jumped? On the stage? No, that was before she jumped. In the air? No, that was after she jumped. When was my pupil supposed to be applying inhibition? Can he say no to a stimulus before the stimulus is received? Saying no after the stimulus has been recognised is actually too late. His brain has already instantly prepared itself to respond habitually.”

In fact, not only has the brain already prepared itself to respond habitually, as Jeff later points out, it has already done so!

“scientific experimentation has shown that we have actually taken actions several milliseconds before we are aware that we have done so! This is not science fiction. What this means is that our response to a stimulus has already been chosen before we are aware that we have been stimulated. If we are to inhibit our response, and substitute a different one then we are going to have to apply inhibition prior to what we perceive as the present moment!”

Do we need to rely on scientific experimentation to see this? Of course not. Consider the last time you felt angry, upset, shy. Consider the point that you felt this. Was there a moment where you considered whether to feel this way or not? Did you have the option of stopping before you had the feeling? Now consider a time where you may have reacted in way that was unusual. Maybe something that would ordinarily have made you feel angry or vulnerable failed to do so. Again, consider whether this was a choice or simply a state you found yourself in.

We believe that this defines inhibition. A state you find yourself in. A growing capacity to see your choices because your conscious mind is active. It in no way prevents you from shouting and screaming and stamping your feet if you choose to, it simply alerts you to the possibility of acting differently.

So what does this mean for the practice of consciously stopping during an Alexander lesson? Nothing! The practice of stopping is exactly that, practice. In the same way a martial artist might practice his forms or a pianist might practice her scales, one can practice inhibition. However, this valuable practice should in no way be mistaken for the real thing! A martial artist cannot defend themselves just because they can demonstrate a form. A pianist cannot play in an orchestra just because they can play scales. Similarly, an Alexander pupil cannot stop in real life just because they can stop in the controlled environment of a lesson.

Inhibition, self-control, these are not choices. They are qualities which we develop as we grow and mature. Attempting to force these qualities, to control them, leads, at best to a hollow imitation of them, and at worst, to rigidity, fixing and restriction. Ironically, the very aspects of inhibition that we wished to avoid in the first place.