November 2004
Issues by e‑mail: The role of the WFC
A dialogue between chiropractic leaders
A recent e‑mail
conversation took place between Terry A. Rondberg, DC, president of the
World Chiropractic Alliance, and Gerald Clum, DC, president of Life
Chiropractic College West. It touches on many issues of interest of all
chiropractors, including the role of the World Federation of Chiropractic in
the international chiropractic community.
The dialogue began with
a comment Dr. Rondberg made in a message to Drs. Mark Styers and Hagan
McQuaid, relating to the difficulty of "working from the inside" to restrain
the WFC's actions. In that note, you told Dr. McQuaid: "I have read what you
have stated on many occasions and I know you are sincere and a great,
dedicated and committed chiropractor. Don't be fooled by Clum, WFC or Ingrid
White."
Dr. Clum received a
copy of the e‑mail and contacted Rondberg to ask about the comment,
launching the discussion.
From Dr. Clum
Terry,
You sent me a copy of a
message that was sent to Mark and Hagen wherein you stated:
"Please don't make
these same mistakes Hagan, I have read what you have stated on many
occasions and I know you are sincere and a great, dedicated and committed
chiropractor. Don't be fooled by Clum..."
Terry‑what does this
mean?
Thank you for your
follow through. Be well.
Gerry
==========
From
Dr. Rondberg
Dear Gerry,
What I meant is that he
shouldn't fool himself into thinking his involvement with the WFC
is anything less than tacit support for their goals of world domination of
the profession. That, quite frankly, is what I think you've been doing.
I realize you feel we
can "work from the inside" to control or direct the WFC,
but I vehemently oppose that line of reasoning. It cannot be done and any
support you and other chiropractic leaders give the
WFC ‑
through membership, financial donations, or even cooperation ‑ can lead to
its eventual control of the profession.
If you could really
change a group from the inside, then why not join Quackbusters or the
National Association of Chiropractic Medicine? Would you really pay
membership dues to either of these groups in the vain hope that you would
change their policies and make them understand the need for
subluxation‑centered chiropractic?
Why, then, do you
persist in thinking you can change the
WFC?
In some respects, it does far more harm to chiropractic than Barrett's
anti‑chiropractic organization since the WFC has managed to convince people
‑‑ including some within the profession ‑‑ that it speaks for the entire
chiropractic profession.
I know the WCA has
often been accused of not being "democratic" since the membership at large
does not vote directly for the board. What about the WFC?
Who voted for David Chapman‑Smith to run this group?
And if anyone thinks
for a moment that Chapman‑Smith doesn't call the shots, they should read up
on some of his actions. I remember, back in 2000, when he contacted the
United Nations on behalf of the WFC and asked the Department of Public
Information (DPI) to withdraw its recognition of the WCA as an NGO. Although
Chapman‑Smith first stated that he had acted on order of "the executive," he
later admitted that he had taken the action on his own.
At the time, even you
felt he went beyond his authority. You told him that: "you appear to have
stooped to an even lower level of professional performance with your
unsubstantiated claim that the WCA 'is not an eligible organization and that
it has abused the status conferred."
You also countered
Chapman‑Smith's criticism that I was supposedly running the WCA as a private
enterprise. You stated: "You could be argued to have been a 'founder' of the
WFC, its sole secretary‑general and a
person whose personal circumstances have been well served by the ties and
situations the WFC
has brought your way." Yet, you continue to support the
WFC
through your involvement and your refusal to advocate the
ICA's withdrawal from it. I won't rehash all
the old arguments here, but for the record:
** The WFC
has attempted to control chiropractic education worldwide. Its Tokyo Charter
specifically notes that educational programs could be conducted only with
"prior consultation with and approval by the national association or other
chiropractic organization recognized by the World Federation of Chiropractic
as representing chiropractors in that country..." In addition, only
WFC member associations would be allowed to
invite people to teach in their countries.
** In his book, "The
Chiropractic Profession," Chapman‑Smith, misrepresents the WFC's
role in chiropractic when he states that it is "the profession's primary
forum for developing a consistent basis for legal recognition, education and
practice in all world regions." That might be his vision, but it's not
reality!
** In his book, he also
proclaims that educational standards around the world "are monitored by the
various CCE's and the World Federation of Chiropractic." Since when does the
WFC have authority to monitor educational standards? Would you permit the
WFC to monitor your college's standards?
** At a chiropractic
town hall meeting, Chapman‑Smith stated that his vision of chiropractic was
as "the dominant force for the provision of spinal manual therapies in the
mainstream health care systems throughout the world." He added: "To me,
that's a very much bigger vision than simply using your own language talking
about adjusting subluxations." While I have no problem with a
non‑chiropractor (Chapman‑Smith is, after all, an attorney, not a DC) having
a "vision" of chiropractic, I do not want to see that vision foisted on the
profession. He might dismiss the "language of adjusting subluxations" as
unimportant, but the majority of chiropractors do not.
** At that same
meeting, Chapman‑Smith declared that market research had "proven" that
discussing the subluxation and its effect on health will not attract
patients. Tell that to doctors who have large and successful practices based
on educating the public about the effects of subluxation on wellness. After
all this, do we really want the WFC to be the one to coordinate an effort to
establish the "identity" of chiropractic? We already have an identity ‑ that
of a drug‑free and non‑invasive health care approach which focuses on the
correction of vertebral subluxation. What we need are leaders bold enough to
defend and promote that identity rather than allow a group like the WFC
to take control of the profession and create a new identity!
Be well,
Terry
==========
From
Dr. Clum
Dear Terry,
Thank you for your
reply to my e-mail message of August 13, 2004 through which I asked for some
clarification of what you meant by your earlier writing of "Please don't
make these same mistakes Hagan, I have read what you have stated on many
occasions and I know you are sincere and a great, dedicated and committed
chiropractor. Don't be fooled by Clum..."
You related the
following in your response to my request:
"What I meant is that
he shouldn't fool himself into thinking his involvement with the WFC
is anything less than tacit support for their goals of world domination of
the profession. That, quite frankly, is what I think you've been doing."
Your response is
interesting even if inaccurate. The goals of the WFC
do NOT include "world domination of the profession". With respect to the
idea that I have been fooling myself with my involvement in the
WFC,
I take issue with your conclusion. I think I am more familiar with what is
going on in my head relative to the
WFC than you! As a person who was
involved with the first meetings of the group that would ultimately form the
WFC
and as one of a small handful of people who have been involved at the Board
of Directors level (Council) of the
WFC since its inception, I think I
have a reasonably good understanding of the organization including its
strengths and its weaknesses. My involvement has not been to actively,
tacitly or passively support the world domination of the profession by any
organization or group. My involvement has had a goal for me, personally and
professionally, to take a step away from the tribalism that has
characterized the profession since its earliest days. We need to approach
chiropractic's expanding global presence from a model different than that
which has created the problems we currently and historically have
experienced. If my involvement has achieved any degree of this desired
outcome and if my involvement has accrued to the betterment of the
profession on a global basis it will be told in the fullness of time. A time
frame likely not to be judged by you or me.
After providing me with
further information on your comment related to Hagen you added more of your
thoughts on many subjects. For example: "I realize you feel we can "work
from the inside" to control or direct the WFC, but I vehemently oppose that
line of reasoning. It cannot be done and any support you and other
chiropractic leaders give the WFC
through membership, financial donations, or even cooperation can lead to its
eventual control of the profession."
You have misstated my
desires with respect to the WFC. I do not desire "to control or direct" the
organization. I do desire to have a voice in the organization, I do desire
to be active and involved in the processes of the organization, I do desire
to have the opportunity to argue my position within the organization, I do
desire to influence others in the organization to the perspective I feel is
in the best interests of the profession.
I do desire to work
from the inside. This is a part of my goal of stepping away from the
tribalism of our community. The "tribal" model has characterized our entire
existence. I would like to see that change. I would like to see logic and
reason be applied, to the affairs of the day and a view of tomorrow, that
will allow the best ideas to be supported rather than doggedly endorsing the
position of the "tribe" on any given subject. We have been so dominated by
the "who's right model" we haven't been able to focus much attention on the
"what's right model".
You went on to pose a
question about involvement from the inside, you wrote:
"If you could really
change a group from the inside, then why not join Quackbusters or the
National Association of Chiropractic Medicine? Would you really pay
membership dues to either of these groups in the vain hope that you would
change their policies and make them understand the need for
subluxation‑centered chiropractic?"
Your question is
interesting in its extremism. Quackbusters and the NACM are not about
advancing the interests of the chiropractic profession in any way or in any
circle. The WFC is about advancing
the chiropractic profession around the globe. As the nature of the
organizations are antithetical the question is rhetorical at best.
What we seem to be
differing on is method, not intent. We, you and I, desire to see the
profession advanced around the world. We differ on the strategy to
accomplish this end. This difference is light years apart from the goals of
Quackbusters and the like.
The use of references
to groups as diametrically opposed to our, your and my, vision of the future
is a strategy on your part to evoke an extreme emotional response, to draw a
line and say you are with "my" tribe or you are not. It is the hyperbole
that has characterized our debates. I am tired of it.
You furthered your
rhetorical strategy and the tribal comments by then writing:
"Why, then, do you
persist in thinking you can change the WFC?
In some respects, it does far more harm to chiropractic than Barrett's
anti‑chiropractic organization since the
WFC
has managed to convince people ‑‑ including some within the profession ‑‑
that it speaks for the entire chiropractic profession."
I persist in thinking I
can influence the WFC in the direction I see is needed because I have faith
in the value of that direction. Undoubtedly there are some in the profession
that believe the WFC speaks for the "entire chiropractic profession" and
there are those that believe that you speak for the "entire chiropractic
profession". If people hold either of those views I disagree with them
regardless of the side of the argument. The tribal view requires an "all
good" or "all bad" perspective. You perceive the WFC as "all bad". You are
perceived by some as "all bad". Within each respective sector the "all good"
is more likely to be held.
The truth of the matter
is that the WFC has erred in certain actions and positions. I would also
assert that you have erred in certain actions and positions. In the process
of those errors, could harm have been done? No doubt. I do not believe that
the WFC has erred to the extreme level of your comparison, that of Barrett
et al. Again such hyperbole is a rhetorical effort to evoke an extreme
emotional response. I'd like to take a step away from that behavior.
You have raised the
question about the democratic nature of the WFC
and the employment of Mr. Chapman Smith when you wrote:
"I know the WCA has
often been accused of not being "democratic" since the membership at large
does not vote directly for the board. What about the WFC?
Who voted for David Chapman‑Smith to run this group?"
You are to be applauded
for your forthright approach to the issue of board members and officers not
being voted upon by the membership of your organization. With respect to
your question "What about the WFC?"
the Board of the WFC is known as its "Council". The Council is composed of
representatives of the WHO regions of the world. With the exception of North
America each region has one representative to the Council. North America
presently has five representatives. This is due to the centralization of the
profession in North America. In North America, the Canadian Chiropractic
Association, the American Chiropractic Association and the International
Chiropractors Association each appoint their representatives to the Council
based upon means devised by each organization. In other regions of the world
the WFC member nations in each region vote on who shall represent them at
the Council level. Therefore in contrast to the approach you outlined the
WFC uses a series of approaches that allow the constituent members to choose
Council members.
Mr. Chapman Smith is a
contracted employee. He is hired by the Council for a given period of time.
He does not have a position for life, the organization is not "his". He is
contracted to work for the corporation. If and when the governing body of
that organization finds his service to be less than they desire he will be
replaced.
You have attempted to
characterize Mr. Chapman Smith as the essence of the organization. As
evidence of this you cite an action he took regarding the Department of
Public Information. Specifically you note:
"And if anyone thinks
for a moment that Chapman‑Smith doesn't call the shots, they should read up
on some of his actions. I remember, back in 2000, when he contacted the
United Nations on behalf of the WFC and asked the Department of Public
Information (DPI) to withdraw its recognition of the WCA as an NGO. Although
Chapman‑Smith first stated that he had acted on order of "the executive," he
later admitted that he had taken the action on his own."
This is an excellent
example of how, as noted above, the
WFC has erred. As you noted you were
well aware of the fact that I was very outspoken about this action on Mr.
Chapman Smith's part. It was ill‑advised and it was an unnecessary action on
his part on behalf of the organization.
This specific event was
the subject of extensive discussion on the part of the WFC
Council and it lead to a change in internal procedures on matters of this
nature.
That being said this is
also another example of the "all good‑all bad" requirement of the tribal
approach. The gentleman mis‑stepped, it was reviewed and it resulted in the
procedures of the organization being changed.
You have sought to use
it as all encompassing evidence of his universal control of the
organization, its direction and its intents. This is unfounded and it
represents another use of the hyperbole I referenced above.
In your letter you have
asserted that Mr. Chapman Smith "calls the shots".
Then you detail
communication where he was called to task for his actions. If in fact you
call the shots you are not called to task for your behavior, if you don't
call the shots you are subject to the kind of argument I, and others, put
forward as you noted below:
"You also countered
Chapman‑Smith's criticism that I was supposedly running the WCA as a private
enterprise. You stated: "You could be argued to have been a 'founder' of the
WFC, its sole secretary‑general and a person whose personal circumstances
have been well served by the ties and situations the WFC
has brought your way." Yet, you continue to support the
WFC
through your involvement and your refusal to advocate the
ICA's withdrawal from it."
It is a fact that
participation with an organization is intended to serve the organization. It
is also a fact that participation in an organization provides a forum for
the personal interests and needs of those involved. My point was to
recognize these two facts and appreciate in argument that when used, they
are two‑sided.
The fact remains that
Mr. Chapman Smith was an integral element in the WFC
being formed, he has served the WFC
and the WFC has served him.
The WFC
will have another Secretary‑General if Mr. Chapman Smith is not serving in
that capacity, the same arguments would not apply because the circumstances
are different. A variation on the theme will apply however as the next
person will also serve the organization and also be served by it as would be
expected and appropriate for any and every person in such a capacity.
Asserting ICA
should not support the WFC as a
result of this reality is illogical.
In your closing
paragraph you move on to a discussion of the identity of the profession and
the recent efforts of the WFC with respect to this question:
"After all this, do we
really want the WFC to be the one to coordinate an effort to establish the
"identity" of chiropractic? We already have an identity ‑‑ that of a
drug‑free and non‑invasive health care approach which focuses on the
correction of vertebral subluxation. What we need are leaders bold enough to
defend and promote that identity rather than allow a group like the WFC
to take control of the profession and create a new identity!"
Your arguments
expressed in "after all this" come down to the fact that you have selected
statements and writings of Mr. Chapman Smith over a decades long window and
you have used them as the ammunition to load the guns of your tribe. Mr.
Chapman Smith is entitled to his views. He doesn't need your agreement or
mine. If we don't agree with him it is up to us to articulate reasonable,
cogent arguments in contrast to his views. Instead what is pursued is an ad
hominem attack of vile proportions designed to stir the emotions of the
members of the tribe.
Your references to the
identity conference of the WFC are quite intriguing. You were invited to
have a seat, a voice and a vote at the
WFC
Identity Conference held in February of this year. I worked hard and argued
effectively to secure that invitation for you. You chose to reject the
opportunity for dialogue, input, debate and exchange. You then railed at the
potential that anything good could come out of the effort.
Another aspect of
tribal thinking is that the tribe believes its views are the views of the
world. Therefore when the tribe has a view of the identity of the
chiropractic profession it presumes it must be the world's view of the
chiropractic profession. You stated:
"We already have an
identity ‑‑ that of a drug free and non‑invasive health care approach which
focuses on the correction of vertebral subluxation" The problem is, saying
it is so does not make it so. If it were only that easy!
A problem I have in
discussions of this nature is that I agree with you in desiring the kind of
identity articulated immediately above. Therefore I must be a member of the
tribe and if I talk to others who are not members of the tribe I must be
disloyal to the tribe. Another tribe views it in reverse, if I speak with
them I must be a member of that tribe and certainly not a member of the
other tribe. All good or all bad.
The recent efforts of
Dr. Zhang from the WHO offer a perfect illustration of the fallacy that the
chiropractic profession has an accepted identity in the world. It was only a
matter of months ago that Dr. Zhang your friend and contact at WHO, wanted
to issue a guideline for chiropractic training from her office. Her first
iteration called for 200 hours of training provided to medical doctors
around the world, and, voila they were eligible to practice chiropractic. If
we truly had an identity on a global basis this would not ever have
happened. (The good news is that she has moved off this position and toward
a view that while perhaps not desirable is infinitely more acceptable than
as first stated by her.)
To quote the great
psychologist McGraw (i.e. Dr. Phil), the question I face about the affairs
of the profession's behavior when I receive a letter such as yours with its
inherent criticisms and condemnations is Phil's classic line, "how's that
workin' for ya?"
I am fatigued by the
constant, required evisceration that is demanded by the rhetoric. Einstein
has been quoted as saying something to the effect of the following:
"We can't solve
problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
We need a new approach
to our differences and to the challenges before us as individuals, as a
profession, and as a people. With respect to a consideration of Dr. Phil's
question the answer I would have to give for the profession is "not very
well". If that is the case then we need to embrace another approach with a
different kind of thinking. One that is respectful of the differences
between and among people, one that focuses much more on the "what" of the
thing versus the "who" of the thing, one that looks for the long term result
rather than the immediate result, and one that employs a new kind of
thinking than that that got us into our present position.
Yours in Life,
Gerard W. Clum, D.C.
==========
From
Dr. Rondberg
Dear Gerry,
Thank you for your
interesting and eloquent response to my letter. As you might expect, I agree
with some of your statements and disagree with others. That, I suppose, is
the earmark of a meaningful conversation.
Thank you also for
acknowledging that:
"What we seem to be
differing on is method, not intent. We, you and I, desire to see the
profession advanced around the world. We differ on the strategy to
accomplish this end."
There are many ways to
view our profession and many notions as to which path it should take in its
journey into the future. Hindsight may indeed prove there was a "right" way
or a "wrong" way, but none of us has the wisdom to discern that from our
vantage point of the present. We must therefore work toward what we feel is
the best direction and respect those whose viewpoints differ with ours.
Neither of us has the
time or energy for a lengthy discourse on all the points we touched on in
our letters, most of which have been ‑‑ and will continue to be ‑‑ rehashed
in other mediums. I do, however, wish to comment on your intriguing
observations about the tribalism that you see characterizing our profession.
Tribalism ‑‑ which is
to me little more than an expression of group psychology ‑‑ is a somewhat
maligned concept, as though globalization is the only civilized goal worthy
of our evolutionary progress. I think this may be the result of focusing on
the negative aspects of warring tribes, rather than on tribal cultures that
have long been able not only to coexist but to cooperate with and help
sustain each other.
An artist named Royce
Carlson recently wrote a fascinating essay in which he states that, in
today's world, "tribalism is an attempt to take the best aspects of
traditional tribal culture and the best aspects of modern western culture,
and combining them into a support group for individuality. In a consciously
chosen or created tribe you can be fully your unique self and, at the same
time, have the psychological safety and support that comes from belonging to
a like‑minded group of people. The development of modern tribes may be the
Phoenix that will rise from the ashes of a possibly disintegrating culture.
It's an exciting time to be alive!" What an interesting concept!
Applying this to
chiropractic, we can view the various "tribes" as expressions of the
philosophical diversity of our profession, rather than as warring
competitors or intolerant enemies. This desire to create and nurture
individual communities within the chiropractic universe is not a sign of
regression into the dark ages of chiropractic tribalism, but a means to
prevent the absorption ‑‑ and therefore the destruction ‑‑ of vital elements
into a homogenized whole. The current campaign against "tribalism" by some
in the profession is too strongly reminiscent of the attempts by the U.S.
Government, in the 19th century, to eliminate the tribalism of Native
Americans for me to be comfortable with it.
To be frank, I see the
WFC as a force that not only is
trying to eradicate the traditional, philosophy‑based chiropractic
communities but which, rather than moving away from a tribal model, is
attempting to impose its own "new tribalism." A good definition of this new
tribalism comes from one of your fellow academicians, Dave Frohnmayer,
president of the University of
Oregon.
He stated that the new tribalism is "the growth of a politics based upon
narrow concerns, rooted in the exploitation of divisions of class, cash,
gender, region, religion, ethnicity, morality and ideology
@
a give‑no‑quarter and take‑no‑prisoners activism that demands satisfaction
and accepts no compromise."
This is how I and many
others view the WFC and its politics based on the narrow concerns of its
more medically oriented constituents, with its "give‑no‑quarter and
take‑no‑prisoners activism" that seeks to disinherit doctors and groups that
do not prescribe to its tenets. This is how we interpret the WFC's
efforts to regulate chiropractic education and practice worldwide.
I know you do not view
the WFC in this light and I try hard
to understand and respect your perspective but I cannot fail to wish that
more "tribes" were represented in the
WFC leadership. If that were the case, I
think the group would have a more benign and tolerant stance toward
chiropractic's amazing diversity and more willing to find a secure place in
the profession for all its members. I have not given up hope. As President
Frohnmayer said: "The New Tribalism does not have to be our destiny." That
destiny is in the hands of all DCs and their innate need to create and form
professional communities ‑‑ tribes if you will ‑‑ within the chiropractic
nation will triumph over efforts at regimentation and homogenization.
Yours truly,
Terry A. Rondberg, DC
