Original article
Constructing a philosophy of chiropractic I: an Integral map of the territory

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echu.2010.10.002Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this article is to establish a metatheoretical framework for constructing a philosophy of chiropractic by using Integral Theory and Integral Methodological Pluralism. This is the first in a series of 3 articles.

Discussion

The philosophy of chiropractic has not thrived as a philosophic discipline for multiple reasons. Most notably, these include disparate personal and cultural worldviews within the profession, a historical approach to chiropractic's roots, and an undeveloped framework for exploring philosophy from multiple perspectives. A framework is suggested to bridge divides and create a groundwork for a philosophical discipline using Integral Methodological Pluralism developed from Integral Theory. A review of the literature on the philosophy of chiropractic is mapped according to the 8 primordial perspectives of Integral Methodological Pluralism. It is argued that this approach to constructing a philosophy of chiropractic will bridge the historical divides and ensure a deep holism by pluralistically including every known approach to knowledge acquisition.

Conclusion

Integral Methodological Pluralism is a viable way to begin constructing a philosophy of chiropractic for the 21st century.

Introduction

The philosophy of chiropractic has been discussed and debated in the chiropractic profession for more than 100 years. Despite 2 academic and political consensus statements on philosophy,1, 2 little progress has been made toward actionable steps in educational standards, curriculum development, continuing education standards, licensing requirements, or the creation of an explicit discipline of philosophy in chiropractic.3 The literature on philosophy has grown in the last 2 decades,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 although it has not always met the highest levels of scholastic rigor.3 Part of the problem in developing a scholarly debate and discipline around the philosophy of chiropractic has been political, legal, social, and economic realities that have historically influenced the philosophy development,13,23, 24, 25 as well as the political agenda of various factions in the profession.17, 19 Other limiting factors include personal worldviews and experiences,7, 26, 27 cultural perspectives,15, 24, 28, 29, 30 interpretive frames of reference in regard to data collection,31, 32, 33 research methodologies,34, 35 and clinical approaches.36, 37 Ideally, philosophy guides clinical choices, professional development, research foci, political initiatives, policy, doctor-patient interactions, ethics, and education. A sound philosophy should also act as a guide for personal development of the doctor. In the case of a profession focused on health, wellness, and optimal human function, the philosophy should guide the patient's personal development as well.

The profession's founders developed their philosophical positions from unique social, legal, cultural, and personal contexts.23, 24, 28,38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 These early philosophical approaches created category errors between internal, subjective psychospiritual development and objective, external healing capacities in tandem with universal first principles and individualized metaphors for healing.10,46, 47, 48 This led to testable hypotheses becoming mixed up with philosophical explanations, and body/mind health described in metaphysical and religious terminology.15, 19,46, 47, 48, 49 For example, DD Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, and BJ Palmer, his son and president of the first chiropractic school for almost 60 years, both equated the body's ability to self-heal with the soul and a universal organizing principle of all matter with God.44, 47 The original philosophy they started has its roots in 19th century American metaphysical culture, with roots that go back to a long history of Western esotericism.15, 24, 29, 30, 50, 51 Sorting through these many tangled issues has been debated in the chiropractic profession since its inception and publicly in the peer-reviewed literature for about the last 20 years. The Palmers' also attempted to explain principles of energy healing associated with chiropractic in scientific language 50 to 100 years before energy medicine developed its own scientific lexicon and research protocols.52, 53, 54, 55 These inherent challenges created an internal tension whereby chiropractors were forced to “take sides” against each other while fighting for professional and legal recognition as well as cultural authority in health care and the greater society.

Since the start, chiropractors struggled to survive and disagreed among themselves how best to deal with these philosophical beginnings. That legacy left a fragmented profession without a philosophic discipline. The roots in 19th century metaphysical systems and healing traditions prove well documented15, 24, 28, 29, 44, 56 and are often described in the early chapters of modern textbooks37,56, 57, 58, 59, 60; but no attempts to integrate or come to terms with these early approaches have resulted in the development of a discipline of philosophy for the chiropractic profession.3, 12, 14, 37, 61 The philosophical underpinnings and arguments are often described in part as “recycled” ideas from the history of ideas,14, 62, 63 important primarily for legal purposes23, 41, 45 or relegated to a century-old simplistic polarity between “straights” and “mixers.”28,64, 65, 66, 67 This fragmentation has led to a recent decision by a chiropractic professional governing body, the General Chiropractic Council,68 to dismiss chiropractic's most “defining clinical principle,”69(p37) the vertebral subluxation (VS), and then, after much protest, partly change its stance.70 Vertebral subluxation, acknowledged by most national and international governing bodies, is now referred to by the General Chiropractic Council as a historical artifact.71 Although this latest drama in the historical debate is focused on clinical nomenclature, VS, and research methodologies, it nonetheless relates to philosophy. Several researchers have stressed the need for alternative research paradigms to truly capture the nature of the chiropractic encounter and alternative methods in general.5, 7, 10, 22, 33, 35, 55, 67, 72 Vertebral subluxation has remained central to the wide-ranging philosophical approaches within the profession and rarely differentiated from those approaches. Without a distinction between clinical encounters, research, and chiropractic's traditional reason for being (VS) from theories and philosophy, this type of confusion and its resulting legal and political consequences prove inevitable.

If philosophy in chiropractic is to develop into a discipline, it needs to transcend and include all elements of the profession from scientifically testable theories, which range from VS to doctor-patient interactions; ethical, legal, and political questions; and all possible ramifications of the chiropractic encounter. This latter area of study would include biopsychosocial and spiritual health and well-being. A philosophy of chiropractic should be able to include science, art (as in chiropractic as a healing art), and ethics or morals. It is in this spirit that I approach the topic in this article.

This article proposes the use of Integral Theory (IT) and its Integral Methodological Pluralism (IMP) to heal the fractures in the chiropractic profession and develop a discipline of philosophy. Integral Theory and IMP can be used to unite all approaches to date in regard to philosophy and lay the groundwork for a comprehensive approach to philosophy. Integral Theory does this by offering an orienting framework that can integrate 4 domains of truth: subjective, objective, intersubjective, and interobjective.73 Such a framework opens the way for a meaningful discussion around the central debates in the philosophy of chiropractic such as the relationship between science and philosophy, the importance of subjective perceptions of health and well-being, the doctor-patient relationship, belief systems, and the impact of social and cultural domains on the profession and the philosophy. Integral Theory also offers a way to explore the more complicated subjects of innate intelligence as a somatobiological and psychospiritual metaphor; the social and cultural history of philosophy and how it relates to chiropractic's emergence; the relationship between quantitative and qualitative research; and the many worldviews and perspectives individual chiropractors, educators, researchers, and philosophers bring to the profession.

Integral Methodological Pluralism is a recent development of IT.73 Integral Methodological Pluralism combines 8 methodological approaches to knowledge acquisition. Combined, these 8 methods include every known domain of knowledge humans have claimed to know. By applying each of these 8 methodologies to the philosophy of chiropractic, a comprehensive pluralism is ensured, whereby no domain of knowledge is left out. The current article defines these methodologies and then examines where they have already been addressed in the literature on philosophy in chiropractic. Some of these methodologies such as empiricism and systems have often been overemphasized and explored in great detail. Other domains such as autopoiesis or the organism's ability to create its own parts and “know” itself from its environment have not been addressed in detail, beyond the biological definitions of innate intelligence and a few specific references in the literature. The methodologies least addressed in the literature are phenomenology, structuralism, ethnomethodology, and cultural anthropology. It is these domains that will be addressed in the second and third articles of this series.

In the first issue of Philosophical Constructs for the Chiropractic Profession, the precursor to the Journal of Chiropractic Humanities, Joseph Donahue suggested that we nurture philosophers in the profession who are well read in a variety of disciplines and educated in philosophy to act as the profession's soul by stirring debate and emotion.15, 74 This sentiment is widespread, as is the agreement that a discipline of philosophy in chiropractic is necessary.1, 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 17, 19, 37, 61 To embrace the wealth of diverse perspectives, include original philosophic premises, adhere to the history of ideas, acknowledge social and cultural forces shaping the profession, and honor the scientific validity claims around clinical entities, a broad framework is required.

Many approaches attempt to deal with the philosophical challenges at the center of chiropractic's history: to emphasize the clinical encounter and doctor-patient interaction as central5, 7, 13, 75; to reconcile the philosophical approaches by expanding research methodologies to include whole systems34, 35; to dismiss all spiritual jargon from the philosophy9, 12, 49, 76, 77; to expand on the traditional philosophical premises6, 15, 16, 20, 78; to link the philosophical premises to complexity and systems theory46,79, 80, 81; to relate it to a hierarchy of values or worldviews and to the highest levels of human function and spiritual development8, 15, 26, 27, 44, 46, 82; and to embrace the wider root metaphors underlying the philosophical premises such as vitalism, holism, naturalism, therapeutic conservatism, and critical rationalism.10, 60, 80 This latter approach, in particular, has garnered wide support within the profession.83, 84

McAulay3 describes the internal debate within the profession along the polemic of 2 methodological approaches, which have not been acknowledged in the wider discussion. These include the “dismissivist approach,” which dismisses the basic premises of the early philosophical models, and the “authoritarian approach,” which accepts those models as the basis of chiropractic's philosophical underpinnings. McAulay called for a third approach, the “critical approach,” which uses basic components of discipline and argument building to achieve consensus and rigor. He uses examples from the literature to make a strong case for the use of critical thinking in developing a discipline of philosophy within chiropractic. Such a method would include 8 core standards of scholastic rigor: clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logical consistency, and intellectual traits. Furthermore, he identifies core intellectual traits such as “intellectual humility, intellectual courage, intellectual integrity, intellectual perseverance, intellectual simplicity, intellectual autonomy, and confidence in reason.”3(p24) McAulay's critical approach is essential to the development of a discipline because it ensures a move forward, “in thinking and knowledge acquisition,”3(p18) and suggests a way to rigorously broaden the dismissivist and authoritarian approaches. It is certainly an approach worth emulating in terms of moving forward. Yet, as a “critical approach,” it really only represents one methodology, albeit a very important one. One methodology is not enough for a comprehensive construction of a discipline of philosophy of chiropractic.

According to IMP,85 there are at least 8 known methodologies for reproducible knowledge acquisition; and so, it is important to explore in this context. The 8 methodologies are empiricism, phenomenology, structuralism, autopoiesis theory, ethnomethodology/cultural anthropology, hermeneutics, systems theory, and social autopoiesis theory. As will be discussed below, these 8 methodologies taken together represent the most comprehensive or integral ways humans have developed to acquire knowledge. Each one is nonreducible and thus represents a way of knowing that should be included in any philosophy that claims to be holistic. By applying IMP to constructing a philosophy of chiropractic, we can ensure that all perspectives on philosophy are being taken into account even when they disagree. This would expand on McAulay's3 proposal by including his criteria of critical rationalism as the benchmark through which each methodology will be included. The current article will define IMP and suggest ways it can be applied to constructing a philosophy of chiropractic.

This is the first in a series of 3 articles, which propose to build upon the literature and create an explicit framework for the construction of a discipline of philosophy in chiropractic. My goal is not to define what a philosophy of chiropractic is per se, but merely to set parameters allowing for a wide inclusion of ideas across diverse perspectives and philosophical insights. This article draws on IMP and its 8 methodological approaches to gaining knowledge. I propose IMP as a central organizing framework through which all discussions of philosophy in chiropractic can be viewed. The next article will build on some of these methods, examine chiropractic's emergence in the context of a history of philosophy, and consider ways it relates to the historical emergence of the “self.” Finally, a third article will elaborate on more of these methods and apply a developmental constructivist approach to the current arguments on philosophy. The goal of this article and the ensuing 2 articles is not to answer these questions as much as to create a map through which answers can be found and more complete questions can be asked.

Integral Theory was originally developed by American philosopher Ken Wilber over the course of 25 books.86 Integral means “all inclusive,” and that is exactly what the theory does: it includes every aspect of reality humans have claimed to know. The primary method of inclusion is the use of the 3 major perspectives an individual can take to view reality, or the first-, second-, and third-person perspectives.

The 4 quadrants were developed to capture the four irreducible dimensions that all organisms have. The 4 quadrants are broken down according to individual (upper quadrants)/collective (lower quadrants) and interior (left-hand quadrants)/exterior (right-hand quadrants). The upper left quadrant (UL) represents the first-person perspective or “I.” This frames the view from within, the internal experience as well as an individual's personal worldview. The upper right quadrant (UR) refers to the view of the individual's body, an objective view, behavior, or “it.” Behavior includes the internal self-organizing capacity of an organism as well as its physical structures and actions. The lower left quadrant (LL) is the domain of collective interiors, or where 2 or more individuals can mutually resonate in shared and felt understanding, or “We.” This is the domain of culture and collective worldviews. The lower right quadrant (LR) is the domain of collective exteriors, or social realities, the shared interactive world space of 2 or more individuals in community, “its.” This is the domain of social and economic realities as well as the internal dynamics of social systems such as professions and clinics. Each quadrant has its own valid claim to truth: subjective truthfulness (UL), objective truth (UR), intersubjective justness (LL), and interobjective functional fit (LR). Integral Methodological Pluralism developed from IT (Fig 1). The quadrants can be understood as perspectives.

The quadrants represent the four views an individual can look through. In addition, anything can be looked at from all four quadrants (“quadrivium”) or from each quadrant individually (“quadrivia”). This is referred to as the “view through” or the “view from.”87(p48) Thus any individual writing about the philosophy of chiropractic will look at the world through all four quadrants. Each individual views the world through these four lenses or “quadrant-perspectives.”87(p296) That same individual can write about philosophy of chiropractic as an object, from all four perspectives. Thus we can determine whether the philosophy addresses all four dimensions. In order to be complete and truly holistic, it must. Another example is the doctor-patient encounter; the doctor views the world through all four quadrants, containing an I-perspective, a We-perspective, an it-perspective, and an its-perspective.87 The patient also has these four dimensions but can be viewed as an object and looked at from all four perspectives (a quadrivium of views about the patient); the doctor can inquire about the patient’s subjective feelings (UL), examine the patient’s body or actions (UR), and also inquire as to the patient’s cultural (LL) support, such as whether there are supportive people in the patient’s life they can talk to about living a healthy lifestyle, and social (LR) support systems such as family and work (Fig 2).

Quadrants comprise 1 of the 5 elements of IT. The other 4 are levels, lines, states, and types. Levels refer to an increase in complexity in each quadrant. For example, in the LR quadrant, the chiropractic profession grew from one school and several students to several schools and to the third largest health care profession on the planet. In the UR quadrant, we can refer to increasing complexity of biological organisms from cells to multicelled organisms, to organisms with primitive nervous systems, and to organisms with complex nervous systems. Lines refer to the variety of ways levels can be described in each quadrant. For example, in the LR quadrant, we can discuss the increasing complexity of legal structures, organizational structures, economic structures, etc. In the UL quadrant, we can describe an individual's increasing development of complexity through technical understanding, professionalism, moral compass, and empathic abilities. States refer to the transitory changes in each quadrant. For example, in the UR quadrant, we can discuss the state of health, illness, or wellness of the body. In the UL quadrant, we can discuss states of consciousness: alertness, drowsiness, melancholy, bliss, etc. Types refer to typologies in each quadrant. For example, in the LL quadrant, we can discuss the types of interactions between doctors and patients or between chiropractors. The signature phrase of IT is AQAL (pronounced ah-qwal); and it refers to All-quadrant, All-level, All-lines, All-types, and All-states. For any approach to be integral, it must at least include all levels and all quadrants.

The comprehensive approach that IT takes has proven versatile enough to be applied in several ways,88 throughout dozens of disciplines such as chiropractic,15, 27, 44, 47, 78 medicine,89, 90 nursing,91, 92 health care,93 consciousness studies,94, 95 science,96 ecology,97 education,98 and politics,99 across disciplines such as integral psychology,100 which brings together the common elements from several approaches within psychology (an application that may be similar to what is required in chiropractic), and in transdisciplinary ways as in research,101 Integral Life Practice,102 and coaching.103 Integral Theory has developed into its own discipline, Integral Studies, which includes a Master's Degree,104 2 dedicated journals,105, 106 a biannual scholarly conference,107 and an academic press.108 The most recent development of IT is referred to as IMP.85

Integral Methodological Pluralism is a postmetaphysical approach to knowledge using at least 8 of the most important methods developed for acquiring valid and reproducible knowledge (Fig 3). It is considered postmetaphysical because it acknowledges that all knowledge, even metaphysics, arises through methods of acquisition. Each method brings forth or discloses an aspect of reality. Thus, metaphysics itself is disclosed through such methods. The 8 methods are derived from dividing each quadrant into an inside and an outside, creating 8 views or perspectives (Fig 4). The views for the UL quadrant are introspection (inside) and structuralism (outside), those for the UR quadrant are brain (inside) and body (outside), those for the LR quadrant are social system (inside) and environment (outside), and those for the LL quadrant are culture (inside) and worldview (outside).88 I argue that IMP (and IT) should be at the foundation of any future discussion of philosophy in chiropractic and central to the construction of a philosophy of chiropractic.

The real importance of IMP is its inclusionary approach to knowledge through injunctions and practices. Guided by the pluralistic notion that everyone is partially right, it is thus ideal as an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approach to chiropractic. Without having content, IMP is a framework allowing for 8 verifiable truths, disclosed through 8 distinct methodologies, each nonreducible. For example, one cannot reduce the validity claim of an individual's interior experience (UL) to epiphenomenon of brain states (UR). Each has its own claim to truth.

Integral Methodological Pluralism is a content-free map of reality. Few a priori assumptions about the world are required. This approach opens up many possibilities for a philosophy of chiropractic especially as Wilber posits a limited number of pregivens: Eros, or the inherent drive toward greater unities or wider identification; Agape, or an inherent tendency toward a wider embrace or more inclusion; a morphogenetic field of potential known as the Great Nest of Being and Knowing; as well as some deep structures or tenets of evolution.87, 88, 109 These limited pregivens can be integrated with the original principles of chiropractic's philosophy, such as the concepts of an Innate and Universal Intelligence, without giving them pregiven ontological status. The inherent drive toward organization posited of individual bodies (UR) and the universe (LR) can be understood as an aspect of the few pregivens Wilber claims. One important application of this approach is how it reframes the discussion of traditional chiropractic principles. For example, rather than dismissing innate intelligence as a heuristic metaphor reminding doctors to be more compassionate or conservative,10, 13 keeping it intact as strictly a biological principle,6, 16 attributing to it a sort of primal intuitive capacity,27, 110 or dismissing it outright as prescientific or prerational,49, 111 the concept can be discussed in terms of a deep structure of biological systems as a reflection of an even deeper structure of reality. Critiques can still be strongly presented; but a new wrinkle is allowed into the discussion, one that broadens and deepens the philosophical discourse in a rigorous way.

Applying IMP to constructing a philosophy of chiropractic requires philosophers of chiropractic to systematically apply each of the 8 methodologies. Each methodology represents a perspective such as the inside view of the interior of the individual (introspection) or the outside view of the interior of the individual (structuralism). Wilber87 developed Integral Math as a way to account for each of the 8 perspectives. The math is based on perspectives. The 3 main variable notations are described by Esbjörn-Hargens101 (Table 1), the editor of the Journal of Integral Theory and Practice:

first-person (1-p) or third-person (3-p) × inside (1-p) or outside (3-p) × interior (1p or 1p⁎pl) or exterior (3p or 3p⁎pl). When referring to 2nd person realities the “1p⁎pl” variable is used as the third variable since 2nd person is more technically understood as 1st person plural. Likewise “3p⁎pl” refers to interobjective realities. These three variables also represent quadrant × quadrivium × domain (where domain can either be a quadrant or a quadrivium).101(p86)

To clarify this notation system, 2 examples will be useful: UL quadrant and LL quadrant. The following examples can then be applied by the reader to the UR quadrant and the LR quadrant (Fig 5).

The UL is the domain of “I” or the interior of the individual, the first-person perspective. This first-person perspective can be viewed from the inside (introspection/phenomenology) or the outside (structuralism). First-person perspectives are written as 1-p; so any time we are referring to a subjective stance, we use 1-p. The view from the inside is also written as 1-p because it refers to a first-person perspective as well. Thus, if I were looking at my own interior thoughts or feelings, it would be notated as 1-p × 1-p. We would then add to this the domain or quadrant we are talking about. In this example of myself looking into my own feelings, because I am an individual, we would write 1p for UL quadrant. Thus, we would have the notation 1-p × 1-p × 1p or first-person perspective (1-p) from the inside (1-p) in the UL quadrant (1p). If however we are referring to using an objective external measure of my interior such as a quality of life survey instrument, a phenomenological survey instrument, or a developmental psychology survey instrument, that would be looking at my interior (1-p) from an objective perspective (3-p). Thus, we are no longer talking about me looking into my own feelings and thoughts, but examining my feelings and thoughts using objective criteria as might be applied by Piaget to study cognitive development112, 113, 114 or Kohlberg to study moral development.115 In that instance, the notation would be 1-p × 3-p × 1p, or first-person perspective (1-p) × looking from the outside or third-person perspective (3-p) in the UL quadrant (1p), because we are still talking about the individual's interior or the UL quadrant, “I.”

For another example, let us talk about the interior of the collective in the LL, the domain of culture, shared meaning, and mutual understanding. In that case, we would still be talking about interiors because we are still in the left-hand quadrants; but now, we are talking about collectives. Therefore, if we are describing the interiors, we will stay with the notation of first person because it implies the subjective stance or the view from within (1-p). (If we were in the right-hand quadrants, this first notation would be 3-p, for third-person perspective.) The second part of the notation would remain the same as well, inside (1-p) or outside (3-p) views. (This would also be the case for the right-hand quadrants.) For the third part of the notation, however, we turn the subject into a plural of subjects; we add the term “⁎pl” to denote the domain of LL quadrant (1p⁎pl). The addition of “⁎pl” denotes the first-person plural or “We.” (In the case of the right-hand quadrants, for LR quadrant, the notation is 3p⁎pl; for UR quadrant, the notation is 3p.) This first-person plural would refer to the subjective stance of the culture: What is the overarching worldview of a culture? How do 2 or more individuals feel on the inside when together or resonating with each other? What are the chiropractic culture's shared meanings? All of these elements of meaning, mutual understanding, and shared resonance are depicted in this domain. When we are talking about collective interiors, or the LL, the notation for the inside view is 1-p (first person) × 1-p (inside) × 1p⁎pl (first-person plural aka second-person perspective or “We”); and the notation for the outside view is 1-p (first person) × 3-p (outside) × 1p⁎pl. In the first case, the inside, we are referring to hermeneutics or the study of meanings; in the second case, the outside, we are discussing cultural anthropology or ethnomethodology, or structuralism applied to cultures.

Esbjörn-Hargens101 explains the 8 methodological families along with Integral Math as follows:

The eight methodological families Wilber (2003) identifies are Phenomenology (1-p × 1-p × 1p), which explores direct experience (the insides of individual interiors); Structuralism (1-p × 3-p × 1p), which explores reoccurring patterns of direct experience (the outsides of individual interiors); Autopoiesis Theory (3-p × 1-p × 3p), which explores self-regulating behavior (the insides of individual exteriors); Empiricism (3-p × 3-p × 3p), which explores observable behaviors (the outsides of individual exteriors); Social Autopoiesis Theory (3-p × 1-p × 3p⁎pl), which explores self-regulating dynamics in systems (the insides of collective exteriors); System Theory (3-p × 3-p × 3p⁎pl), which explores the functional-fit of parts within an observable whole (the outsides of collective exteriors); Hermeneutics (1-p × 1-p × 1p⁎pl), which explores intersubjective understanding (the insides of collective interiors); and Cultural Anthropology (1-p × 3-p × 1p⁎pl), which explores recurring patterns of mutual understanding (the outsides of collective interiors).101(p88)

The philosophy of chiropractic has been discussed in terms of most of these perspectives but never in relation to all of the methods simultaneously. This is very important because it is common for authors, philosophers, researchers, and humans in general to be blinded to their own perspective and to engage the world including their own critique or support of a philosophical concept from one dominant perspective.87, 116 Divine116 has even found that most people view the world through the lens of one of the quadrants. For example, when a person “comes from” the UL quadrant, he or she wants to know how the situation relates personally to him or her; when a person “comes from” the UR quadrant, he or she wants to know what actions he or she could take or just the facts. When a person “comes from” the LL quadrant, he or she seeks to know how the situation might bring individuals together; and a person “coming from” the LR quadrant wants to know how the situation fits into a bigger system or context. It is easy to skip quadrants that you do not normally focus on and thus miss important elements of reality.

By addressing each perspective and methodology systematically using Integral Math as a way to keep track of each methodological family, a comprehensive approach to philosophy of chiropractic can be entertained that forces each researcher or philosopher to include methods or perspectives that he or she may have missed. The “Discussion” section explores these 8 methods in more detail, while noting where they may be found or not found in the chiropractic literature. Integral Math and the 4 quadrants in general can be used to synthesize the work already done, scan for any missing elements or perspectives,101, 117 and then begin to construct a philosophy.

Section snippets

Discussion

The 8 methodologies are described below in relation to the construction of a philosophy of chiropractic. It is important to note that each methodology such as phenomenology or systems theory represents a methodological family. That is, they are not the only methods able to disclose phenomena at each perspective. For example, the perspective of a first-person view of internal experience can be brought forth by contemplation, introspection, meditation, and phenomenology. Integral Methodological

Conclusions

By offering an Integral framework through which a philosophy of chiropractic can be constructed, possibilities emerge toward integrating disparate worldviews, overcoming inherent contradictions, and furthering professional unity. Including these 8 irreducible perspectives within the philosophy of chiropractic reflects a postmetaphysical stance drawing from ideas and criticisms in premodern, modern, and postmodern approaches to knowledge.

Basic debates plaguing the profession for decades can now

Funding sources and potential conflicts of interest

Simon Senzon has received from the Global Gateway Foundation a research and writing grant to further the objectives of the Foundation.

Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank Sherri McLendon, MA; Christopher Kent, DC, JD; and Donald Epstein, DC, for editorial suggestions.

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (139)

  • Association of Chiropractic Colleges

    The ACC chiropractic paradigm 1996

  • World Federation of Chiropractic

    Philosophy in chiropractic education

  • DonahueJ.H.

    Palmer's principle of tone: our metaphysical basis

    J Chiropr Humanit

    (1993)
  • KleynhansA.

    Developing philosophy in chiropractic

    Chiropr J Austr

    (1991)
  • StraussJ.

    Toward a better understanding of the philosophy of chiropractic

    (1999)
  • JamisonJ.R.

    Chiropractic philosophy versus a philosophy of chiropractic: the sociological implications of differing perspectives

    Chiropr J Aust

    (1991)
  • KleynhansA.A.

    chiropractic conceptual framework: part 1: foundations

    Chiropr J Austr

    (1998)
  • MorganL.

    Innate intelligence: its origins and problems

    J Can Chiropr Assoc

    (1998)
  • CoulterI.

    Chiropractic: a philosophy for alternative health care

    (1999)
  • CoulterI.

    Chiropractic philosophy has no future

    Chiropr J Austr

    (1991)
  • ClevelandA. et al.

    The chiropractic paradigm

  • KeatingJ.

    Philosophy in chiropractic

  • PhillipsR.

    The evolution of vitalism and materialism and its impact on philosophy in chiropractic

  • SenzonS.

    Chiropractic foundations: D.D. Palmer's traveling library

    (2007)
  • KochD.

    Contemporary chiropractic philosophy: an introduction

    (2008)
  • LinscottG.

    The importance of history and philosophy to the future of chiropractic

    Chiropr Hist

    (2007)
  • ClevelandA.

    Teaching philosophy in chiropractic education today: evolving into the twenty-first century or doing more of the same?

  • SinnottR.

    Sinnott's textbook of chiropractic philosophy

    (2009)
  • WintersteinJ.

    Philosophy of chiropractic: a contemporary perspective. Part 1

    ACA J Chiropr

    (1994)
  • O'MalleyJ.

    Toward a reconstruction of the philosophy of chiropractic

    J Manipulative Phys Ther

    (1995)
  • RehmW.

    Legally defensible: chiropractic in the courtroom and after 1907

    Chiropr Hist

    (1986)
  • MooreJ.S.

    Chiropractic in America: the history of a medical alternative

    (1993)
  • Villanova-RussellY.

    An ideal-typical development of chiropractic, 1895-1961: pursuing professional ends through entrepreneurial means

    Soc Theory Health

    (2008)
  • SenzonS.

    Five levels of consciousness in the chiropractic profession

  • SenzonS.

    BJ Palmer: an integral biography

    J Integral Theory Pract

    (2010)
  • WardwellW.

    Chiropractic: history and evolution of a new profession

    (1992)
  • AlbaneseC.A.

    Republic of mind and spirit: a cultural history of American metaphysical religion

    (2007)
  • FullerR.

    Mesmerism and American cure of souls

    (1982)
  • KentC.

    The cult of scientism

    Chiropr J

    (1995)
  • BooneW. et al.

    Proposed vertebral subluxation model reflecting traditional concepts and recent advances in health and science: part III

    J Vertebr Sublux Res

    (1997)
  • JamisonJ.

    Looking to the future: from chiropractic philosophy to the philosophy of chiropractic

    Chiropr J Austr

    (1991)
  • CoopersteinR. et al.

    Technique systems in chiropractic

    (2004)
  • BergmanT. et al.

    Chiropractic technique: principles and procedures

    (2011)
  • PalmerD.

    The science, art, and philosophy of chiropractic

    (1910)
  • PalmerB.

    History in the making (Vol 35)

    (1957)
  • PaxsonM. et al.

    A textbook of modernized chiropractic

    (1906)
  • Lerner C. The Lerner report. Unpublished. Palmer College archives;...
  • Gaucher-PelsherbeP.

    Chiropractic: early concepts in their historical setting

    (1994)
  • GeilowV.

    Old dad chiro: a biography of D.D. Palmer founder of chiropractic

    (1982)
  • SenzonS.

    The secret history of chiropractic

    (2006)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text