massage and bodywork professionals
a community of practitioners
Where Does Energy Work Belong?
The comment period for the second draft of the Massage Therapy Body of Knowledge ended a week ago. I’ve made comments on both drafts, and I hope you have too.
A number of my own comments were in regard to the amount of energy work-related statements that were included. I don’t think most of it belongs there. Before anyone gets their chakras in a twist at me, let
me state that Healing Touch was the very first class I ever took, back
in 1993. I went on to follow that up with classes in Reiki, polarity,
and a few other energy modalities. I’ve also studied and used Shiatsu
for years. I have in fact in the past taught a lot of Reiki classes
myself, but I’ve decided not to teach it anymore. I blogged that
decision on my FB page a few months ago. Some of these scientific minds
around here are rubbing off on me.
I honor anyone who lays their hands on another, or directs energy at another, with the intent for the highest good to take place, whether that’s to heal, to comfort, or to ease someone’s passing. I don’t have
any objections to energy work, either giving or receiving. I just think
it’s a separate body of knowledge.
Yes, I know that plenty of massage therapists use energy work, not only from my own past experience, but also from spending a few hours surfing through the approved provider pages on the NCB’s website
recently. It appears that there’s more energy-related classes than
hardcore bodywork and/or evidence-based classes. Obviously there’s a
demand, or that wouldn’t be the case. READ MORE.....
Views: 277
Comment
-
Comment by Christopher A. Moyer on March 21, 2010 at 5:31pm
-
No need to apologize, Laura. I was just expressing my opinion that the metaphor was perhaps too strong.
Ironically, it's worth pointing out that people - well, myself at least - are treated with more respect at Bodhi's site than here. Sometimes, at this site, when people don't like my position on an issue, they just resort to ad hominems. (That's always a sure sign they have nothing substantive to offer.)
You are not even a massage therapist ,Just a trouble maker!
The first part is definitely true. I'm not a massage therapist. As for being a trouble maker... eh, whatever. I probably do cause trouble for people who don't like to be challenged to support their wild assertions.
You are just another researcher trying to control research funding
It actually is a good idea to 'follow the money' in these instances. Do I have anything to gain from my position?
I'm a state employee (WI), so anyone who wishes to do so can look up my income online. And, I just updated my CV, which has all my grants on it - I'd be happy to send anyone a copy, if you'd like to look it over. I'm not positioned to make or lose any money related to energy work in any way, nor do I profit directly from my own research. I've never even had a federal grant!
If I can be said to profit from research at all, it is only indirectly. My profile in my academic department is improved when I publish research. Believe me, this is small potatoes. My friends who are lawyers and stock brokers - who spent much less time and energy on their educations than I did - would laugh in my face at the amounts we are talking about, if they weren't so well mannered. Anyone who has the brains to go into academic research could be making lots more money elsewhere.
I would like to see the MTBOK excise all mention of energy work, though. Why? Because I would like for it to be accurate, to serve the profession, and for it not to be an embarrassment to lots of folks.
But in the end, what the MTBOK does or does not contain, is going to have little to no direct effect on me. I'll go on researching the same stuff as before, because that is what I am interested in. (I might have to start calling it something different, though, if the MTBOK defines MT as including energy work.)
For anyone who is reading this who is on the fence about the existence of energy work and its relation to massage therapy, here are a few interesting things to consider:
-T. Field has published more massage therapy research than any other single person. How is it that not a single one of her studies mentions this so-called energy or suggests that it might be at work in massage therapy? Similarly, why are there NO studies of energy work in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, Nature, Science, PLoS...?
-How do these practices sustain themselves in the absence of any research findings supporting their efficacy? Could that be down to money? After all, in many of these practices, only one who is trained can 'attune' the next wave of practitioners. To an outsider, such as myself, that looks an awful lot like a pyramid scheme.
-If anyone could demonstrate what these energy modalities claim, why haven't they claimed the JREF prize? Why haven't they won the Nobel Prize in medicine? In physics?!
Hell, if anyone could do what these folks claim to do, they could be the first person to ever win the Nobel in medicine AND physics!
Admittedly, most of this is off topic. The original topic is whether energy work belongs in the "Massage Therapy Body of Knowledge". Since it's not the CoSSMTD (Collection of Stuff Some Massage Therapists Do) nor the EWBOK (Energy Work Body of Knowledge), I'm not really sure how there is anything to argue about.
-Dr. Trouble Maker
-
Comment by Laura Allen on March 21, 2010 at 4:33pm
-
I will apologize for my choice of metaphor, Christopher. I meant it to convey that the EBP scientists are good at shooting down energy work, which as I have stated over and over I am not against in any way; I just personally believe it doesn't belong in the MTBOK.
I have heard that the second draft only got about 600 comments. There's almost ten times that many therapists just on this website. No matter what your belief, I wish more people had commented.
-
Comment by Emma Torsey on March 21, 2010 at 2:42pm
-
Christopher,
You are not even a massage therapist ,Just a trouble maker!
-
Comment by Mike Hinkle on March 21, 2010 at 2:35pm
-
Simplicity. The same as western medicine. Study and support only what you want and will make you the money. Like I said, it is a small group that leans toward EBP, that push the separation. Because someone learns "crap" woo woo in school, does not mean all woo woo is crap. They just learned it wrong. Energy work is already "IN" Christopher. Good luck taking it out, especially with no proof. You are just another researcher trying to control research funding, in my better judgement.
-
-
Against my better judgment, I'm going to break my own rule about never responding to Mike. Here goes.
K isn't things one does not know, but desperately hopes might be true; or things that one already does in spite of reason, logic, and evidence.
Obviously, there will be new K as time moves forward. If ever there was any K related to energy work, it would get added in then. There is no need to include the infinity of topics for which there is no K, in the hopes that there might someday be K.
This ignores the fact that we do have some K regarding so-called energy medicine. Anyone with sufficient knowledge of the sciences "K's" that the precepts of energy work are ridiculous. It would actually be far more defensible for the MTBOK to indicate that we know massage isn't energy work, than to indicate that it might be or include energy work.
Signing off.
-
-
I agree there are questionable services being taught and learned in school. But I have noticed a dither that takes place in watching and this could be playing a huge factor. Until NCB, which all say "set the standards", takes away the credits for this training, they are able to do it. That's a fact. And the service would not be there if the demand wasn't. Energy work will remain.
-
-
And adding it in will allow us to add more K about it as we grow the energy K side of the equation. Because this side has neglected by those put in place to gain the K, doesn't mean we should set it aside. After all this document will grow as we do. Let's gain K about all services, we are licensed or certified to do! We are a versitle group. Don't allow anyone to take away any services you perform.
-
-
As for the issue at hand - does energy work belong in the MTBOK? Well, it will surprise no one who knows me that my answer is an unambiguous "no." My reasoning is simple, and it is down to the "K" in MTBOK. Simply put, there is no K where energy work is concerned.
As I understand it, the point of a BOK is to document what is known about a profession, and to indicate what generally needs to be known by a practitioner of the profession. There are things that we know about massage - ways it can be done, benefits that it has, benefits that it might logically have but which require more study, and ways that it works or might logically work.
None of this is true for so-called energy work. Including it in the MTBOK is going to be an awful mistake. Unfortunately, I expect it is one that is now unavoidable. The iterative, democratic process by which the MTBOK is being shaped is not conducive to wholesale rejection of anything that appeared in the first version.
-
-
Kicked in the teeth?! That's a hell of a metaphor. I've never seen anyone get metaphorically kicked in the teeth here or at Bodhi's site.
-
-
O.k, so I have only slightly been kicked in the teeth here.
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
You need to be a member of massage and bodywork professionals to add comments!
Join massage and bodywork professionals