[Ruth Heather Hull]
Levy, Ajjawi and Roberts (2010: 1322) argue that despite more than 200 years
of continuous practice, little is known about the actual decision-making
processes of homoeopaths and that significant tensions exist between advocates
of different styles of homoeopathic practice.
The hostility between advocates of group analysis and their critics is
one such example of this tension. The world-renowned classical homoeopath,
George Vithoulkas (2008), refers to group analysis as one of the new “spurious
theories” and says “with all these irrational and arbitrary new ideas the
modern teachers are defaming homoeopathy and demolishing the corner stones that
constitute its scientific edifice”. In an article against such methods he
wrote, “This is essentially the old idea of signatures abandoned as useless
hundreds of years ago, now presented as an enlightened modern solution for
easily finding the indicated remedy”.
Other critics of group analysis have also associated it with the
doctrine of signatures, a theory that the appearance of a substance suggests
its healing properties.
Mangialavori (2010: 4) acknowledges that “had homoeopathic medicine
adhered to this doctrine, it would have been ridiculed and never gained
credence in scientific circles” and he argues that his work is not about simply
applying the doctrine of signatures which is “often limited to superficial
analogy”; rather, it is about discovering a “deep analogy between systems”. To
emphasise this point, Mangialavori (2010: 25) wrote: “Superficial isomorphism
is not very helpful in studying the principle of similitude, whereas deeper
structural analogies and system processes are essential.”
Saine (2001), although no advocate of group analysis, argues in support
of a possible deeper structural analogy existing between remedies and their
sources.
He writes: At the time of Hahnemann the doctrine of signatures” meant
simply and only that the shape of a substance could be used to determine the
organ the plant was
likely to help (for example a bean-shaped leaf applies to kidney
ailments). This rudimentary doctrine was criticised by Hahnemann. But nowhere
does Hahnemann criticise
the idea that the source of the remedy has a bearing on the symptoms it
produces. Why are nine of our snake remedies listed for fear or dreams of
snakes? Why do numerous plant remedies have their aggravations at the exact
hour when the species opens its flower Puls. at sunset, etc.
Why are so many of our remedies made from creeping plants found to have
dreams or desire to travel? Is this coincidence or is it possible that the life
struggles and habits
of the remedy source do influence the feelings of the provers? We cannot
explain how this might take place but why should this concept be so
implausible? ...
And if the physiology of the remedy source can give us clues, why would
we ignore the possibility of using these hints? Would any responsible
homoeopath use only this type of data in formulating a remedy decision? Decidedly
not (Saine, 2001: online).
Another critic of group analysis is Chandran (2012). He finds group
analysis “totally unscientific and illogical” and claims it “illustrates the
pathetic level of scientific awareness that rules the propagators of the
‘Sankaran method”. He argues that this method “has nothing in common with
classical homoeopathy, where symptoms belonging
to mentals, physical generals and particulars, with their qualifications
such as causations, sensations, locations, modalities and concomitants decide
the selection of simillimum” and that “Sankaran’s method will result in gravely
disabled incapacitated homoeopathic practice, preventing homoeopaths from
utilizing the unlimited potentials of our
materia medica.”
The researcher feels that Chandran’s (2012) unequivocal statements fail to take into
account that Sankaran’s method does rely on the use of repertories, materia
medica and the faithful recording of symptoms and their qualifications.
Sankaran (2006: 20) says “any real progress in homoeopathy is impossible
without a very firm footing in homoeopathic philosophy, the materia medica and
the repertory” and as this study will show, the themes of a homoeopathic family
or group are founded solely on information provided in repertories, materia
medica and provings. The first step in Sankaran’s method is to extract from
repertories all rubrics pertaining to
the selected remedies and use these as a base for data analysis. Group analysis
is not based on the ‘old idea of signatures’ but rather on themes that have
been developed through a thorough analysis of both materia medica and
repertories. Scholten, Sankaran and Mangialavori have not developed their
theories through simply looking at the source of remedies, but rather through
countless hours of studying homoeopathic literature and analysing cured cases.
Furthermore, Chandran (2012) implies that Sankaran limits specific
emotions or symptoms to specific kingdoms. He uses fear as an example, saying:
“according to Sankaran, fear indicates the ‘vital sensation’ of ‘survival
instincts’, which needs ‘animal remedies’” and asks:
“I want to know, from where Sankaran got the idea that only ‘animal
remedies’ have ‘fear’ and ‘survival instincts’?”
Chandran (2012) repertorises the symptom FEAR and finds remedies listed
from the plant, animal and mineral kingdoms. Hence he argues that Sankaran’s
method is not sound. It is important to note here, that Sankaran (Cooper, 2006)
defines his method as a “system approach, rather than a symptom approach” and
does not allocate specific symptoms (such as fear) to one kingdom only. In
group analysis, any remedy can experience fear. It is how they experience and
express this fear that is important.
For example, ‘animal remedies’ may express it through aggressive,
competitive behavior; ‘mineral remedies’ may express it through becoming
excessively organised, fastidious and structured in their day-to-day life; and
‘plant remedies’ may express it by being unusually sensitive and reactive to
situations.
The researcher feels that it is more the use and application of group
analysis that is open to criticism rather than the methodology itself and she
agrees with Traub (cited in Lewis, 2007) who wrote the following: “It always
saddens me when people take a brilliant concept and reduce it to ridiculous
proportions in an attempt to simplify homoeopathy.
I have seen a homoeopath give Apis because the patient wore black and
yellow stripes to the interview. I hardly think that this is what Sankaran
intended”. In the words of Saine (2001), “If some misuse the work, should we
throw out the concept? Do some people carry these ideas too far? Yes, but let's
us not throw out the baby with the bathwater”. Even the ‘masters’ of group
analysis caution homoeopaths in its use and application, stressing that it
should not replace a systematic, logical repertorisation of symptoms or be used
too subjectively.
Scholten (1993: 23) acknowledges that group analysis is not the most
successful method for local, physical complaints and is best applied to the
level of the mind.
Chauhan (2007), another well-recognized expounder of Sankaran’s method,
explains how important it is for a homoeopath to treat the case as it is
directly in front of them.
In other words, if a patient has gangrene of the leg then the homoeopath
needs to treat the gangrene first before looking for the patient’s simillimum.
Having completed their Master’s dissertations in group analysis,
Wulfsohn (2005: 80), Vogel (2007: 128), Weston (2010: 152) and Chhiba (2013:
168) all caution homoeopaths in how they apply group analysis, saying that if
it is applied carelessly or incorrectly it can lead to false, inaccurate
interpretations and unreliable, misleading results. Experienced homoeopaths who
have a profound knowledge of homoeopathic philosophy and materia medica
combined with many years of clinical practice and case-taking,
in which they have developed their own intuition, employ group analysis
with great success. However, students and novice homoeopaths who are not yet
proficient in homoeopathic philosophy, materia medica and case-taking need to
apply it with caution.
According to Levy, Ajjawi and Roberts (2010:1323) “students and novices
tend to store knowledge in a more disorganised and disjointed pattern and to
retrieve it in a trial-and-error fashion.
They lack sufficient knowledge of homoeopathic materia medica
(comprising over 3000 medicines) to make accurate pattern recognition
decisions, and are heavily reliant on deductive reasoning”.
As Vithoulkas, in an interview with Bhatia (2010) says, “bypassing hard
work of studying remedies properly in order to find easy ways for prescribing,
will finally prove disappointing to both the
Homoeopath and patient”. Advocates of group analysis argue that one of
its strengths is that it enables homoeopaths to use remedies that have not yet
been proven but that may be an individual’s simillimum.
However, this apparent ‘strength’ is also often seen as its ‘weakness’.
Vithoulkas (Bhatia, 2010) argues that if one learns properly the remedies
already available, the homoeopath will have no need for new unproved remedies
and that “to teach that those new unproven remedies are the basis of modern
homoeopathy to the novices, is a disaster”. In direct contrast to Vithoulkas’s
reliance on provings is Mangialavori’s (2010) belief that it is cured cases and
not provings that are of the utmost importance. Sankaran (Cooper, 2006) argues
23 that the science of homoeopathy is constantly evolving and that homoeopaths
need to evolve with it: “Hahnemann, in his own lifetime, changed the Organon
six times, introducing new concepts, new ideas, and depths of understanding
each time. So to remain stuck to what Hahnemann said, as the last and final
word, is in a way going against his very spirit.
One has to go by what one observes and what one sees, and, following on
the method of Hahnemann, using the logic, using observation, testing it out,
testing the concepts, being self-critical, being circumspect, one has to
advance in order that we get better and more consistent results.”
The researcher believes that the most suitable conclusion to the debate
on group analysis is embodied in Saine’s (2001) bold words: “Let ideas and
clinical results speak
for themselves”. She feels that more research needs to be conducted on
group analysis, more cured cases applying this method need to be published and,
most importantly, these need to be viewed and tested with open minds.
[Edward Peter Phahamane]
The Group Analysis controversy
In direct opposition to the modern trends in homeopathy are the views of
Vithoulkas (2000), Olsen (1996) and Winston (2000), who express concern about
the new ideas
and theories. Their criticism lies in the perception that these ideas
would limit the acceptance of homeopathy into mainstream medical practice.
According to Vithoulkas (2000) the new concepts are based on imagination and
magical thinking rather than on facts, while Winston (2004) believes that group
and kingdom analysis are the ‘edges’ of homeopathy and entreats homeopaths to
be fully grounded in the classical basics before venturing forth.
In his article “The Fundamentalist Controversy”, Moskowitz (2002)
examines the controversy between what he coins ‘fundamentalism‘ and
‘innovation’ and the world wide opposition that has arisen to the ‘new
teachings’. Regarding the accusation that the teachings were largely
speculative in nature (Winston, 2000), Moskowitz (2002) comments: “……. while
Scholten’s themes are not always identical to Sankaran’s, they overlap to a
great extent, and their methodologies are similar. To discern the common
features of
a class, Sankaran uses a computerized study of remedies with newly
developed hard and software, which has enough memory to access the vast
homeopathic literature and
to scan it at high speed. In addition he uses group analysis to deduce
the symptoms of unproven remedies, not instead of proving them, but as a test
of his thinking, precisely
in the spirit of modern science, which judges hypotheses by the accuracy
of the predictions they generate”.
Proving symptoms of remedies are recorded in a materia medica and most
often accepted by homeopathic profession as a solid picture. Scholten (2005:17)
expresses his view on the proving picture: “…...the longer one reflects about
it, the more obvious it becomes that the descriptions are only approximations
of what the real picture of a remedy is. The real picture is something abstract
and a proving can only elicit parts of it.
The development of the materia medica is a process, with the proving
only being the start of it”. Further requirements for the development of a
complete remedy picture are
a definition of an essence, a verification of findings through clinical
application and a comparison of remedies for the purpose of classification
which Scholten (2005:17) considers to be the first real step into science and
theory formation. “Classification is not impossible or leads to false
conclusions, ……without classification all information is unconnected and cannot
be put into theory” (Scholten, 2005:17).
Mangliavori (2005:33) agrees that a synthesis of the multitude of
symptoms is vital to define the characteristic aspects of a remedy system. He
emphasizes that “the essence”, “the nucleus”, “the core element”, “the spirit”
were some of the terms used to describe a set of symptoms which needed to be
present in a case for the prescription of a certain remedy. However when used
in a reducing manner these concepts neglect interaction and connection of data
and leave a remedy picture without structure. Only an appreciation of the
coherence of symptoms can lead to a full remedy picture or “Gestalt”
(Mangliavori, 2005:33).
The concepts of Group Analysis are not in contradiction to the
conventional Hahnemannian proving. A conventional proving forms an integral
part in the process of the development of a complete remedy picture. Modern
authors like Scholten, Sankaran or Mangliavori have according to the ever
expanding knowledge during the last centuries merely gone a step further by
adding a structure to the endless amount of data collected during a proving.
In order to progress as a science, homeopathy has to go through the stage
of source description, development of themes, clinical confirmation,
classification and theory formation (Scholten, 2005:17). As Einstein (2005:17)
rightly puts it: “Science without epistemology (= Erkenntnistheorie) is,
insofar as it is thinkable at all, primitive and muddled”.
Vorwort/Suchen Zeichen/Abkürzungen Impressum