Book critiques

[Guest guest]

Marnae,

 

I agree that " BH & E " is further from anything that a Chinese doctor might

say about what they think or do than is " The Web. " Yet, I tend to see " The

Web " as a more important text to critique because it is less obviously

interpretive and exerts influence in a part of our society that has both more

direct and longer term effects. I think Nigel's critique of " BH & E " got to the

essence, so digging into the detail is not as interesting or as productive as

comparing " The Web " to Chinese sources.

 

I am no doubt biased by my respect for Harriet and Efram's generosity

toward work I think is important - like the Cuban acupuncture programs -

but I also feel there is a qualitative difference. While " BH & E " does bring

the power of name recognition to its authors and their commercial ventures,

the same is true of " The Web's " value to Katpchuk's similar interests.

However, " BH & E's " influence largely derives from the lay book market

(Barnes and Nobel, etc.) where its effects are more diffuse. On the other

hand, " The Web " is an integral part of the confluence of influence over our

professional future that is implicit in the endorsements of Harvard and

PBS.

 

It seems to me that this entire discussion is solid evidence that the

devaluation of anything that is not directly clinically applicable is not

benign. Practically, people are going to write the books they want to write

and make the claims they think they can justify. The only workable

solution is a professional population capable of the critical thinking

necessary to sort through these diverse influences and to discuss them in an

informed way. It is one thing to hand someone " The Web " and say, " This is

the best/most comprehensive book on CM " and it is quite another to give the

same person, the same book and say, " Here's a simplified version of TCM

that emphasizes those things that intrigue westerners. "

 

The whole brouhaha is a good example of the fact that it is not clinical

experience that carries the most influence, but the rationale that best

expresses the needs of the time. There were a number of people with more

training and clinical experience than Ted, or Harriet and Efram, when their

books were first published. Influence did not go to clinical experience but

to the satisfaction of desires within their respective readerships.

 

Bob

 

 

bob Paradigm Publications

www.paradigm-pubs.com P.O. Box 1037

Robert L. Felt 202 Bendix Drive

505 758 7758 Taos, New Mexico 87571

 

 

 

---

[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

[Guest guest]

, " Robert L. Felt " <bob@p...>

wrote:

On the other

> hand, " The Web " is an integral part of the confluence of influence over our

> professional future that is implicit in the endorsements of Harvard and

> PBS.

 

Bob

 

Certainly the web has more impact on the intelligentsia, so to speak. But H & E

has far more impact on the laity, so to speak. so the question is, which, if

either, of these groups, will have more impact on our future as a profession.

You seem biased towards what the folks at Harvard and PBS say and do and

how that affects us. I have no doubt that the impact is dramatic. However the

view of most laypeople, including most reporters, is much more likely to be

derived from H & E. Thus popular press coverage still often has a slant that

paints our profession in a way that is more reminiscent of this latter text than

it is of what I practice every day.

 

While your point about the need within our profession to critique the web

closely because its defects are more insidious is well taken, this text still is

a

much better presentation for the general public of what I do than is H & E. Its

defects only become apparent to the discerning reader. H & E, on the other

hand, indeed does not really justify such close scrutiny because it is fairly

well

dismissed within the field as interpetive work. But I think you may overrate

the current infleunce of the web. I do not think it is considered a major text

at

any TCM school I know of. It may still be a board reference, but the

peculiarities of the web do not actually come up on board exams. And its

influence at Harvard will no doubt wane when their own chinese studies

departments are exposed to the real rigorous works that are out there. that is

bound to happen inevitably.

 

As to whether the paradigm of TCM presented in the web has affected the

development of the curriculum in some profound way, I am not sure.

Certainly Giovanni has had a far more significant influence on the curriculum

of most TCM schools due to the timely publication of " foundations... " and

" practice... " Is Gio influenced by the web in his presentation? Certainly

schools like PCOM have a few faculty who entered the field because of reading

H & E (another insidious problem of this book was its use as a recruitment tool),

but all of the core TCM faculty are either chinese, read chinese (or another

asian language) or rely exclusively on wisemanese works from BP and

paradigm. I would say that despite Ted's help in launching PCOM, his

influence at this point is nil.