An interesting thought, cubanmiamiboy. I'm not sure I understand all of the implications of what Kirkland is saying. "To articulate something beyond the steps" can have a number of meanings. And I'm not sure that Balanchine ever meant, "Just the steps, m'am." Perhaps I'm wrong, but I always assumed that his appraoch was to warn of over-analysing, or of superimposing the dancer's personal interpretations on the in a way that went against waht was actually present in the choreography or music.
That's how I understand Balanchine. In the documentary "Six Balanchine Ballerinas," Kistler describes losing oneself in the dancing, and in those moments finding one's truest self. I think this is so, and it takes enormous trust and security to reach that point. I don't think Kirkland was able to risk losing herself. As far as their views of their art, I think she and Balanchine lived on different planets. Each disdained the other's approach to performance.
One of the tasks Gelsey set for herself in one of the books (I don't remember if it was DoMG or the second one), was to develop a language to pass on what she knew of the art, as she entered the teaching/coaching phase of her career. It was my very great privilege to be one of her early guinea pigs, and her images were very clear, very precise and the corrections she gave were amazingly (literally) effective.