French version here.
Chinese medicine, in general, and acupuncture, in particular, are fundamentally ethno-medicine. They are cultural products that originated several millennia ago, reaching their peak (for classical acupuncture) during the Han Dynasty (-200 to 200 CE). Consequently, to truly comprehend this practice and the possibilities hidden within, one must first understand the culture that gave birth to it—the worldview it embodies. I will thus adopt a "traditional" perspective.
Before proceeding, I must say that many practitioners do not subscribe to the viewpoint I present here. On the contrary, some acupuncturists strive to minimize differences with Western medicine—either to gain credibility; because their belief system does not allow such a different perspective; or because the Western medical world provides reassurance. They often practice a form of Western medicine with needles. Personally, I believe there is room for everyone, and if this approach helps at least limit symptoms and medications (and their sometimes adverse effects), why not after all? However, this situation creates confusion not only among the uninitiated but also among practitioners who can no longer distinguish between what is "traditional" and what has been so modified that it can no longer be considered as such.
Chinese medicine is resolutely energetic. It explains how the breath of life (qi / prana / pneuma, etc.) animates the body and sustains life. It posits that there is an order that befits living beings, and if this order is not respected, problems arise. Acupuncture is nothing more than the tool to influence this flow, unblock it if necessary, direct it to underserved areas, or limit its circulation where there is an excess. The fundamental premise of this medicine is that as long as this breath of life circulates and animates our cells, life persists. When it is blocked, nothing goes well.
When a traditional acupuncturist inserts a needle, it is not to stimulate a specific nerve, affect a particular metamere, stimulate fascia, or for the chemical soup that the needle induces at the insertion point—although these mechanisms may come into play. Their sole purpose is to regulate the energetic circulation. The decision regarding the choice of meridians, points, and theories to use is made based on observations and tools unrelated to Western medicine.
The traditional acupuncturist will never want to "treat" a "disease." In fact, they cannot. This is the paradigm of conventional medicine. All the practitioner cares about is the energetic circulation in the acupuncture meridians, which they will harmonize using their unique tools. Once the flow is restored, symptoms may disappear. But this is not the result of having "worked on the disease (tendonitis, migraine, or anything else)"!
Herein lies the great problem: language. A person seeking acupuncture will never use terminology that speaks to their practitioner; they will never say, "I have a deficiency of blood," or "my Jue Yin of the foot is weak, I suffer from dryness in my Yang Ming, or my Gan's Yin is in a bad state, so I have the Shao Yang of the foot acting up!" No, they will most likely use Western terminology: sciatica, acid reflux, sprain, endometriosis, etc.
The traditional acupuncturist cares little for these labels. They do not understand them; it's Chinese to them! So, they must ask many questions to translate into energetic terms the imbalance the person is experiencing. They do not treat diseases; they address the terrain. Even when they use terms like Liver, Spleen, Kidney, to create a semblance of common ground with the person in front of them, they must immediately explain that they are mainly referring to certain functions, which are translated under the label "liver," but, in reality, they do not mean the same thing as in conventional medicine.
Western medicine is light-years ahead of Chinese medicine in terms of the understanding of the biochemical functioning of the human body. That is why judging Chinese medicine through this lens is not only futile (as it has never claimed to compare itself to that) but also senseless. It speaks more of the ignorance (unacceptable in our time) of the one attempting it.
No, we must celebrate our differences. We must understand Chinese medicine on its own terms without trying to make it mimic Western medicine because, in doing so, we end up with a simplistic version of the latter and a zombification of the former. For Chinese medicine to represent an "alternative," for us to enjoy the possibilities it holds, we must let it retain its characteristics.
Comments