There are many in our profession who believe that the philosophy of chiropractic is a chain that is holding us back from becoming part of the scientific community and mainstream health care. Their position is that as long as we hold to a vitalistic philosophy we will be considered a fringe profession, and we will never be acceptable to the sciences which function primarily from a mechanistic mindset. Others within the profession see the philosophy as an anchor, something that keeps us steady and stable, anchored to the principles and the philosophy the Palmers gave us. Their position is that chiropractic was, is and always should be what the Palmers said it was. They dogmatically hold to everything that the Green Books contain and refuse to compromise. To them it is heresy to suggest that we could revise the 33 principles or that the normal complete cycle is anything but the way B.J. described.
The conflict between these two schools of thought is really not an issue of how they view chiropractic philosophy but more a matter of how they view the practice of medicine and mainstream health care. The first group desires that we join the medical model in whatever capacity we can. The ultimate goal is to one day be recognized as peers. They view the philosophy as a chain, shackling us forever to a place that will limit us as a profession. The second group sees the philosophy as a tool to defeat the medical model. In their mind medicine and chiropractic are in competition for the life and health of humanity and chiropractic has the far superior approach. There is no doubt that this mindset began with the Palmers and is an integral part of the chiropractic heritage. To them the philosophy is not just something to anchor to, but it prevents us from moving into the dangerous and destructive waters of medicine which in their mind will not only destroy our profession but destroy the lives of people and do harm to society. Pretty strong feelings but that is their thinking.
I have to admit, I am not in total disagreement with that attitude. This is an issue that confronts all straight chiropractors but especially non-therapeutic or objective straight chiropractors. While the philosophy that underlies the practice of medicine, the outside-in viewpoint of life, may be wrong and may be harmful to the well-being of society, it is not the purpose of chiropractic philosophy to destroy or attempt to destroy that thinking. Medicine is just a small manifestation of that large encompassing viewpoint and while that viewpoint needs to be challenged on many levels, chiropractic philosophy is not intended to be a tool for that challenge. Chiropractic philosophy has one purpose, to explain and validate the chiropractic objective, correcting vertebral subluxations to enable the innate intelligence of the body to be more fully expressed. This is precisely why a third school of thought developed in chiropractic.
This group sees the philosophy of chiropractic as more of a rudder. A rudder does not determine a ship’s destination, the captain does. It just enables one to reach that destination. This third group has established their destination (objective). It is to enable the innate intelligence of the body to be more fully expressed in all people by correcting vertebral subluxation. The philosophy just enables us to accomplish that objective. It is important to keep us on course despite ill winds and the tides of outside-in thinking. Rudders keep you going in the direction of your objective. There is a difference between a chain and an anchor and a rudder. A rudder is only of value when moving. A chain and anchor are only of value when you do not want to go anywhere.
Chiropractic should be moving, changing, developing and growing. True, it must occur within the context of our objective, but philosophy does not stand still. It takes us in new directions, directions that may enable us to more effectively reach our objective. It enables us to make adjustments in our course to avoid the shoals and rocks and reefs that would be destructive to reaching our objective. However, it keeps us moving in the right direction. Chains and anchors are great if you do not want to go anywhere. I think chiropractic should be going somewhere. Rudders are only good if you have a destination you want to reach. Otherwise you may as well drift whichever way the winds of change take you. Some in our profession want that. Of course, you have to know that without a rudder, eventually you will end up on the rocks or stuck on some sandbar.
We need to look at our philosophy a little differently than we have. It is not dogma. Our objective is dogma. Our philosophy can and should change. It already has. We are no longer anti-medical. We are amedical. We do not address things medical in our philosophy. We no longer address disease and/or its cause. We are no longer “by hand only.” Some people find that an instrument helps them deliver an adjustic thrust more effectively. If we need to change the 33 Principles, the normal complete cycle or any other aspect or our philosophy, we are free to do so because we have a destination (objective). In fact in reaching a destination it is essential to make periodic adjustments to the rudder.
A rudder gives us freedom. Look at some of the freedom we have because of our objective and our philosophy. Our objective of allowing fuller innate intelligence expression has freed us from the “getting sick people well” destination. We are free to serve and benefit everyone with an innate intelligence and a vertebral subluxation regardless of age, medical condition, or lack of a medical condition. We are free to enable people to be more than they were in areas not usually associated with health, areas like performance and potential. We have the potential to grow. The philosophy surrounding our objective allows for that. Those who are anchored to the traditional philosophy do not have the freedom to grow and may cause us to never go anywhere. Anchored ships are not worth much except as floating museums. They don’t go anywhere. Chiropractic deserves much more than that but it also deserves more than being absorbed by the outside-in approach of medicine. That will happen without a destination and rudder to get us there. The objective is our destination, the philosophy is our rudder. V23n1