The problem of sources in acupuncture

What about the « sources » in acupuncture? What do we rely on? Where do we get our information from? What value do they have? How to find you way in the abundance of references, and how to verify their authenticity? Amongst the hundreds of works (maybe more) that have been published during the last decades and of which we eventually possess a copy, which one can we believe in and which one must we distrust? According to what criteria?

There are many questions, one leading to the other. It is not my intention to give a course on the topic but just to make you aware of the problem.
The obstacles for a correct use of information are therefore many. Needless to say that everything comes to us from very far, in space and in time.

At the beginning, like in every civilization, and every culture, oral tradition prevailed. We still find these methods of memorizing in some texts dominated by versification, rime, rhythm and repetition on one side, and on the other side the transmission of « secrets » from master to disciple which happens logically by word of mouth.

Then, when came written tradition the transmission of information became more systematic, but most of the time without the help of objective and rational criticism, or without the method of historical criticism which was developed not so long ago. This is quite normal due to the level of knowledge in those days.

The analysis and the evaluation of this information on theories and treatment techniques requires that we confront several barriers :

1. The writing.
2. The books.
3. The formulation and the characteristics of chinese thought.

In other words, in order to appreciate the fair value of the existing sources, one should be a sinologist, and even more, a sinologist specialized in the field of chinese medicine. Now it happens that there are very few of them. You could even count them on your fingers.

So what to do? Turn towards the original authority, the Chinese specialists? Certainly up to a point, but they often lack critical rigor and accept sometimes too easily or blindly what comes from their own past. Moreover the process of adaptation to our western world is often not well achieved, if not at all, with the following argument: this how it is done in our country, why not in yours?

There are also a few dozens of western doctors (therefore trained in modern and scientific methods) who have made the effort to learn written and spoken chinese, and who have the possibility of consulting books in chinese, who have acquired a certain knowledge of chinese culture and of the ways of thinking of chinese minds, who can cautiously express more authorized opinions, judgments, and appreciations. I call this category the sinophiles, and I am part of them. Caution in thinking and statements is essential, but our knowledge can be very useful to clear the field, select texts, verify statements or quotations. But our capacities are limited.

There is another category; those who have learned acupuncture and/or chinese medicine but who have no scientific training. Everything depends then on their individual characteristics, the radius of their knowledge, the analytical possibilities of their mind.

Ah ! I nearly forgot those who, with no training whatsoever, but who have a dictionnary and have followed a few courses, embark with enthusiasm on commenting texts or even ideogrammes.

But danger lurks ! The temptation to become a sinofanatic is sometimes irresistible, which leads to the loss of a critical mind. One becomes then intransigent with tradition, at the expenses of lucidity and objectivity.

These categories blend often into each other, creating a network of knowledge with different levels of reliability and authority. It is not easy to navigate between them. Therefore everything that is said or written on acupuncture or on chinese medicine must be considered with caution. Luckily there is a basic nucleus on which nearly everybody agrees (even the tenants of contemporary acupuncture). We will write on it another time…