Why Hold a 'Belief' in the 33 Chiropractic Principles?

Chiropractic philosophy is not philosophy in the classical sense. It is a set of ideas that has come down through our history. For some it has become dogma. The committed view of these principles is sometimes regarded as having religious or cult status, but chiropractic philosophy is not a religion, nor does belief in the principles make one a cultist. Any belief when taken to excess, of course, can produce zealots and dogmatism.

In my exposure to chiropractic over the past 20 years, I have found the majority of criticism of chiropractic philosophy to be political. The belittling of those who stand at opposite ends of the debate is a tragic of lack of respect, compassion and common understanding.

I have not written this reflection to debate what chiropractic philosophy is. My concern is with some of the reasons why a chiropractor would hold views (beliefs) that are against scientific thinking and possibly antithetical, or at least confusing, to the chiropractor's own religious doctrines. This concern has grown out of my experience in speaking with hundreds of chiropractic students and DCs and hearing the confusion on the topic.

There are perhaps those in chiropractic who have the training in psychology and sociology to help us understand why some DCs continue to hold so tightly to these chiropractic principles, in spite of the classical and contemporary views of science and a new view of the philosophy of chiropractic revealing its deficiencies.

My personal observations of why a minority of chiropractors would continue to force the debate to accept only the 33 chiropractic principles as the foundation of ethical practice and the ultimate philosophical grounding can be found in our most basic human needs: how we all share in a quest for belonging and a childlike desire for simplistic answers. We all share in the need for wholeness and cultural identity; to be recognized; to have guidance; for reaffirmation and for participation in something greater than ourselves. We search for the transcendent and look to rebuild a new vision in history.

The question is, can we call for a new vision in chiropractic without calling it a victory and lording it over the heads of the minority?

Why one would continue to have a belief or faith in something that is not provable? One answer is that, in times of stress and fear for security, we tend to turn to a safe place of belonging: a community. Belief in the 33 chiropractic principles appears to be an attempt to fulfill our quest for truth and meaning. It provides historical roots and offers us security. These principles have come to represent those values that we have held collectively as a profession from the beginning.

Steadfast belief in these principles can be satisfying cognitively (for the uncritical) and emotionally (for the insecure), yet the principles seem to hold little truth for the majority. For those who hold to these principles, they are universal doctrines written for all time and for all circumstances. They appear to satisfy the need of a common vision.

Among those who have committed their lives to the practice of chiropractic based upon these principles, there is a sense of community, fraternity, solidarity, mutuality, rootedness, and even refuge and protection. Believing in such principles satisfies the need to simplify the complex and paradoxical. Though these principles represent a simplified and partial version of traditional truths, they are taken as if they were a revelation or new truth.

I have noticed that the doctors who use these principles as their intent to practice (i.e.,"principled chiropractors"), assume a kind of moral superiority. Labeling oneself a "principled chiropractor" can satisfy one's need to be recognized as a special doctor and to build an identity beyond oneself. It can enhance self-esteem and affirm one's actions.
Belief in these principles can also satisfy one's search for wholeness and can even give doctors the sense of their place in society that offers a new model of the professional relationship: the universal priest-healer versus the common lay-provider. Uncritical belief in these principles can satisfy the search for cultural identity and security. I feel this is a major factor in holding so intensely to these principles, especially in light of the continuing dissociation we experience from the health care community because of those principles.

Belief in innate intelligence as something more than a philosophical concept can satisfy one's search for the transcendent. For those who are put off by traditional religions, it can even satisfy one's spiritual needs and become the final answer to the ultimate cause and meaning of life. The answers to the ultimate questions of life can be answered via the removal of the subluxation. The adjustment becomes sacred. It becomes a way of personal freedom for the patient and a point of validation for the provider.

These principles are presented as a clear set of answers even though they are not complete in and of themselves. Holding dogmatically to such beliefs needs a commitment that suppresses the natural inclination to question. This commitment requires continuing affirmation and guidance through a leadership that is highly charismatic. Such leadership must continue to offer a new vision of humanity and the universe: a new order and alternative for the current and future era in the realm of health and even beyond.

Questioning philosophy or theology with scientific reasoning helps one make an assessment, yet some authors have implied that those not believing in the principles wholeheartedly merit excommunication and are not to be considered true chiropractors.

Those who emotionally hold onto such ideas stunt rational thinking and try to eliminate outside information that does not uphold their beliefs. The response to criticism is to evoke greater fear and downgrade others; victimization is continually recycled.

Can we stop the cycle of caustic dialogue and commit ourselves to the search for a common vision through compassionate understanding and reason?