|
Are You a Natural Healer? What is Neural Touch? How does it work? Elements of Neural Touch Martial Arts? Can Neural Touch help me? How did it begin? About Gene Dobkin Seminars Student Comments For Clients For Students For Coordinators Bowen Books Bowen Bridge™ Articles Links Contact Us Home |
The Map is not the Territory When a therapeutic product or method is looking for wider acceptance and legitimacy, research is eventually proposed. If we could only prove the effectiveness of Bowen Technique, doctors would prescribe it, insurance would cover it, and more people would try it as a first alternative. This is not theoretical – Bowen research has been done, more is in progress, and gains have been made for the Bowen “brand.” But it always makes me vaguely uneasy. Medically acceptable proof requires rigor – an allegiance to The Scientific Method (TSM), which seems such a misfit for body therapy. TSM requires a “triple-blind” setup: Neither test subjects, administrators, nor data analysts my know whether a particular subject received real treatment or placebo. It also requires the experiment be reproducible, anywhere, anytime and by anyone. During testing, you must not care what works and what doesn’t. This is fine if the test agent is a pill. Tell me though, how do you have a test subject group who don’t know whether or not they received hands-on treatment? Some may say, “Alright, we’ll give one group Bowen and the other group some other [presumably less effective] therapy.” But how do you have Bowen therapists who don’t know if they’ve done Bowen? Or who don’t care? Who will do the Brand X placebo treatment? And how hard do they try? Ideally, I guess, you would teach a simplified batch of both Bowen and Brand X to disinterested amateurs with no bodywork background! With all the holistic ideals of subtle communication between therapist and client, who do we think we’re fooling with such a “proof”? How does a talented test therapist restrain his or herself from instinctually adding nuances that may not fit the bare-bones test technique definition? One reason herbs usually test poorly in comparison with drugs is because TSM requires each substance be tested alone, while any competent herbalist will tell you that herbs work best in concert. Somehow, this all works out in the research, with results somewhere in between drug-study rigor and purely anecdotal evidence. But for me there’s something more insidious afoot – a reductionist view of Bowen itself. What with the push for proof and the growing number of Bowen styles, there’s become an overemphasis on the “mapping.” One set of points or sequences is presented as superior to other sets or sequences, to such a degree that it would hardly matter who is doing the plunking. And for this to be even plausible, the technique must of necessity be reduced to a lowest common denominator. In my experience it’s neither Tom’s “guaranteed-original” procedures, nor anybody else’s “new-and-improved” ones that ultimately save the day. Who hasn’t sometimes done everything to a “T” and gotten no result? Who hasn’t seen someone ‘mistakenly’ cluster Bowen moves in the most haphazard, lunatic fashion and perform a miracle? I don’t mean to completely discount the value of research or the sensibility of patterning your moves. Rather, I want to emphasize the non-standardized, un-mappable, subtle therapeutic interaction between two sentient beings, occurring in an irreproducible moment in time. In our giddiness that Bowen might become a household word, let’s take care to avoid the accompanying pitfalls of mass-production, standardization and product branding. Consider and study how talented therapists create their moves, rather than just where. Moves are your tools. The map is what you discover. You, the human being, are the technique. Gene Dobkin This article is reprinted with permission from In Touch, Journal of the Bowen Therapists’ European Registry. |
|
U.S. Bowen |