Not with that lot

Some people raise an eyebrow at the prospect of Alexander Technique teachers being on the same register with this list of therapies*. 'We are not therapists! We are teachers!' comes the cry. Indeed one my first reactions to the news that we were likely to share our regulatory framework with these approaches to health and well-being was 'Not with that lot!' I now recognise that my reaction was a prejudicial gut-reaction based on the perception that being seen in such company would somehow degrade, somehow place the Alexander Technique at a lower-than-deserved value.

Leaving aside the question 'Should the Alexander Technique be listed with therapies?' for a moment, this reaction of mine seriously underestimated the evidence that I already had to hand that these approaches have really helped people who are close to me.

A family member - a real sceptic (ridicule is his trade) - has had huge benefits from the Bowen Technique; my family has had fantastic benefits from homeopathy - me especially, ethnic white Irish (potato white, deeply averse to sun-worshipping activities) have been sun-proofed by a homeopathic remedy; people I know and respect have benefited from, and indeed practice, Reflexology.

So a simple inspection of my personal experience, and the evidence around me should have been sufficient to stop me making such a prejudicial exclamation.

*Aromatherapy, Bowen technique, Cranial Therapy, Homeopathy, Massage, Naturopathy, Nutritional Therapy, Yoga Therapy, Reflexology, Reiki and Shiatsu.

Encouragement and resistance

We had a meeting of our Regulation group (ATVSRG, the 'Alexander Technique Voluntary Self-Regulation Group') last week, at which STAT, ATI, ITM, and PAAT were (as usual) represented. We had an important guest at the meeting - Maggie Wallace, co-chair of the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council, which is going to start its work as a Regulator in mid-January. (Though for the Alexander Technique, applications to join the register will start around the end of March, beginning of April.)

It was really encouraging to hear from Maggie (and from Ian Cambray-Smith, the representative from the Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health) that, from their perspective, our work as a group is going very well, and that we are clearly on target, and doing all the right things to prepare ourselves for regulation in the first half of next year.

So, the process looks from the outside as if it is going really well. From the inside, it sometimes feels a bit different. The STAT reps tell us, and it is no secret, that many of their members are suspicious of regulation, and some of them are positively, loudly, enthusiastically resistant to the thought of regulation.

The good thing is that we were told explicitly - by both Maggie and Ian - that any lack of willingness on the part of any one organisation would not be allowed to hold the other organisations back. So if STAT, for example, decide that they cannot, or will not, recommend the register to their members, it will not stop the other organisations from doing so.

And anyway, it will be up to individual teachers to decide whether or not to apply to the register, not for professional associations to so decide. So even if STAT as an association decides 'against' the register, individual members of STAT will still be able to apply to the register.