Why invent a new name? Don’t we have enough different styles of acupuncture practice already?
Well … my reason was I felt that the other labels didn’t fit well. Or that I did not feel qualified to identify with them.
You may have come across different styles of acupuncture and wonder about the difference. Most likely you’ve heard of Western Medical Acupuncture (WMA) and Traditional Acupuncture (TA) or Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), and perhaps other terms such as dry needling (DN). What do these mean?
Adherents to WMA aspire
● to incorporate the effective techniques of acupuncture into their practice of healthcare,
● to explain its actions in terms of patho-physiology and
● to validate its use by reference to evidence derived from RCTs.
The technique is sometimes called ‘dry needling’ either in an attempt to distance it from ideas seen as esoteric and off-putting, or to avoid illegal use of the term ‘acupuncture’ where it is legally restricted.
In contrast, TA practitioners (at least those I know in the UK) aim to offer a self-contained system of healthcare, explaining what they do in terms of the dynamics of “Qi” and other concepts unfamiliar to the Western scientific orthodoxy. The focus is strongly on each client, with treatments being individualised accordingly. Thus the worth and meaningfulness of the treatment to the individual is valued more highly than statistically averaged measures of efficacy and cost-effectiveness.
TA is criticised for being unproven in terms of orthodox EBM (evidence-based medicine) and for using a theory base that is incommensurable with current thinking in the scientific establishment. Conversely, WMA is criticised for ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater’. By taking acupuncture out of context and reducing it to sensory-stimulation-with-needles there is a risk of losing those benefits which result from the broader complexity of TA.
Personally, I find both of the above positions unsatisfactory. I agree with the WMA notion that rigorous inspection of what we do is desirable to minimise any adverse effects of bias, so that finite resources can be allocated wisely, and I am fascinated by some of the insights perceived via the physiological gaze. However this only scratching the surface and I see a real risk of arrogant biomedical imperialism trampling over and destroying that which it does not understand.
At the same time I feel repelled by the naïve acceptance of tradition and dogma that one sometimes encounters in TA circles. How can this dialectic be resolved? I have found that a pluralistic approach works for me.
I first learned acupuncture from naturopaths practising in the European tradition, with much French-Vietnamese influence. This was before the “TCM” style became a thing in the ‘80s, promoted by courses in China. As I understand it, TCM refers to an approach defined relatively recently in China and heavily influenced by medical thinking – hence the emphasis placed on intellectual diagnostic categories or “syndromes”. The style I learned (let’s call it traditional European acupuncture, or TEA for short) was much more hands-on and dialectical – perhaps reflecting more Taoist and less Confucian influences. Since then I have been influenced by teachings from many different perspectives.
In my practice of acupuncture I drew on my background in neuroscience and medicine as well as on Oriental teachings. I was also influenced by other complementary therapies, humanistic therapy and bio-psycho-social medicine. The bioenergetic models of the neoReichians and the vitalism of naturopathy inform my appreciation of Qi. Conversely, my acquaintance with Five Phases theory informs and empowers my psychotherapy work. From homeopathy, I learned that healing is not ‘dose related’ – less can be more. From Healing, I learned to ‘not push the river’ but to trust, be with, allow.
When transcending professional boundaries there is, of course, the danger of falling into idle eclecticism and self-deception so it is valuable to have a guiding frame of reference. Mine has been the principles of holism, as outlined elsewhere (here and here) combined with reflective practice.
So .. the name …
Acupuncture is central to my practice, and I respect its roots in the East, but am no slave to tradition. Nor am I a ‘dedicated follower of fashion’, but I embrace a variety of contemporary influences, though not the reductionist approach inherent in the philosophy of EBM, preferring to work holistically. Thus:
Holistic Contemporary Acupuncture