I believe it is helpful to re-examine our objective from time to time to reaffirm why we have an objective and to determine whether it is still valid. The straight chiropractic movement originally decided to define chiropractic by its objective because first, almost every profession does it and second, because there were so many different approaches and definitions (e.g., state, national, B.J.’s, Stephenson’s) that it was all very confusing. If we had one objective, not only would it more clearly define us but we could also evaluate procedures and techniques as to whether they helped us meet our objective or not, hence whether they were straight chiropractic or not.
It was originally determined that our objective was to correct vertebral subluxation. While that was a limiting objective (in the sense that it prevented the “mixing” of modalities), it was realized that much of the practice of correcting vertebral subluxations was done as a therapeutic measure. In other words, chiropractors corrected vertebral subluxations to relieve back pain, treat other symptoms, cure disease, treat disease, prevent disease, straighten spines and for a myriad of other reasons. So our objective began to be clarified. Correcting vertebral subluxations without a stated reason is akin to being subluxation-based. Subluxation-based allows one to add other things to his/her practice. Correcting vertebral subluxation without a stated reason allows every chiropractor to determine for himself or herself why they are doing it. It still leaves a vagueness to what we do. It was suggested that we correct vertebral subluxations because they are a detriment to life. That is good. It has non-therapeutic reasoning behind it. Others suggested that we correct vertebral subluxations to enable the innate intelligence of the body to be more fully expressed. Personally, I happen to like that one the best. It is as specific as you can get. It involves the physical application of chiropractic (correcting subluxations) and it involves and acknowledges the metaphysical component of chiropractic. Innate intelligence is something that is a fundamental aspect of our philosophy. It is totally foreign to medical practice. It sets us apart from everything and everyone else. Physical therapists are correcting vertebral subluxations, as are medical doctors and osteopaths. They may not call it “correcting vertebral subluxations” but a “rose by any other name…” Besides, what if they started calling it a vertebral subluxation, would they then be practicing chiropractic?
Recently, it has been suggested that we abandon the idea of defining ourselves by our objective and instead define ourselves by a raison dè tre. I would tend to reject that idea based solely upon the fact that it is French and I cannot pronounce it. Those promoting the idea say that our area of interest is the vertebral subluxation and our raison dè tre is correcting them. I think that is a step backward in the progress of straight chiropractic. It may create a wide umbrella under which many chiropractors, doing one thing for many reasons, can gather but it does nothing to clarify what we do. It is like “subluxation-based.” It embraces more people. Perhaps that is what those promoting this idea want to do, embrace more people. I would like to welcome more people into the straight movement but not at the cost of compromising our philosophy. I would like more people who are in agreement with our objective to join us. If we want to adapt a French word to explain our “reason for existence,” that’s fine. But let us realize that our area of interest is the vertebral subluxation and our raison dè tre, our reason for existence, may be their correction, but specifically because they interfere with the expression of the innate intelligence of the body. Why we correct them is as important—if not more important than that we correct them. Without that defining aspect to our reason—we risk becoming a modality, we lose our identity and that which truly makes us separate and distinct and therefore vitally necessary as a profession and as individuals. If we can find a way to make that more clear, more specific, let’s do it. But let’s not go backward and make it less specific. To quote B.J., “Chiropractic is specific or it is nothing.” Whether it is technique philosophy or our objective, the more specific we become the more we become something as a profession. The less specific, the more we become nothing as a profession.v19n2