Experiential Learning in Homeopathy
by Richard Pitt
The challenge of training homeopaths, or Who and What is a homeopath?
To explore this question we need to look at the qualities, which are needed to be a homeopath: we need to look at the goal of what we want to achieve. What should a homeopath look like? Who is a good homeopath? What qualities are important? What skills are important? How do we teach these skills? Can they be taught? Are homeopaths born, or are they made?
We also need to question our ideas, assumptions and even prejudices of how we define a homeopath and homeopathy. Are we doctors, shamans, healers, artists, therapists, or a combination of a variety of these? How we define ourselves influences the ways in which we train students. The style and content of training will reflect this image.
Also, what have been the undercurrent myths that support our view of homeopathy or that perpetuate a collective image of who we are. What is the experience of homeopaths through the years that informs our self- view? One of the most obvious identities is that of homeopaths being physicians and the legal definition of homeopathy as medicine. This has been an intrinsic part of the development of homeopathy as a system and the political realities as part of medical practice. However, there have been challenges in its acceptance as medicine (as it has been defined within the mainstream ideology), both within and outside of our profession as the subjective nature of homeopathic practice has made the defining of homeopathic practice more difficult. As each person is unique, so is each homeopath and therefore the process of homeopathic cure is experienced through the patient and homeopath in a unique way. Another homeopath may do things differently, may provoke a different reaction from the patient, may find a different remedy to give and have a different analysis of what needs to be cured etc. At the same time, there is a common understanding of there being one objectively identifiable remedy needed at any one time.
The inherent subjective nature of homeopathy creates specific challenges in defining homeopathic practice, the training of homeopaths and the identity of homeopathy itself.
The paradox of homeopathy is that it defines itself a science, and strives to establish objective criteria for its practice, and yet it emphasizes the individuality of patient and approach which is a much more subjective process. By acknowledging this it creates a different kind of challenge. If the emphasis on subjective experience is important, then the skills that need to be learnt are also more subjective. How can these be taught?
The defining of homeopathy as medicine also creates a unique challenge for homeopaths that are seeking to establish the appropriate professional model of homeopathy.
How much medical knowledge is necessary to practice homeopathy? This one question alone brings much dispute and lies at a vital crossroads of identity within the profession. What is the knowledge material necessary? Also, what are the professional and personal skills necessary to become a homeopath and what are the qualities necessary to teach homeopathy?
Teaching homeopathy and learning homeopathy embraces similar challenges. The following ideas about teaching were inspired by the writings of Parker Palmer in his book, The Courage to Teach.
Teaching should have integrity and teachers should be willing to recognize their limitations. Teaching is a reflection of our own inner experience and teachers can learn from teaching. Knowing oneself is a precondition for knowing the needs of students. Teaching has to embrace 3 paths: Intellectual, emotional and spiritual. All have to be present.
All teaching is done by example. The teacher reflects him/herself through the subject.
Intellectual: - the way we think about teaching and learning – the form and content of how people know and learn.
Emotional – how teachers and students feel as we teach and learn.
Spiritual – the ways we strive to be connected to a larger context – “a longing that animates love and work, especially the work called teaching.”
“Who is the self that teaches”?
When teaching we should become in tune to our feelings and experiences as we teach.
As teachers we have the power to create the environment that can hinder or help the learning process.
“Good teaching cannot be reduced to technique; good teaching comes from the identity and integrity of the teachers.”
The ability to connect with students, and to connect them with the subject depends less on the methods that are used than on the degree to which the teacher knows and trusts his/her selfhood – and is willing to make it available and vulnerable in the service of learning. Whatever the style used, good teachers have a strong sense of identity with their work. They can connect their subject with themselves and the students, however they do it. Teachers, through their experience and ability to communicate this open the heart of the students; they communicate the spirit of the subject to them. Every teacher has his/her own way of teaching. Technique can facilitate teaching but not dominate it. Teachers need to talk and discuss their experience, to explore how it works for them. There are always different philosophies of teaching, what is more important is how each of us sees what works and what doesn’t work.
Identity and integrity have as much to do with our shadows and limits as with our strength and potentials.
Identity = the total complexity of who we are, the accumulated experiences and personality traits that make us who we are.
Integrity = the ability to be real, to know one’s limits, to be honest and open, to know what is integral to my life, to know what is important.
To teach is really a vocation, it has to be natural and at the same time it can be taught. Teaching involves a real sense of vulnerability. It is similar to having one’s case taken. Why? Because it is something we care about. We are speaking about our experience. To reduce this vulnerability we can disconnect from students, from our subjects, and from ourselves. This is often couched in the language of objectivity and stressed through various ways of learning, of “knowing”, which removes the person from the process.
“In this culture, objective facts are regarded as pure, while subjective feelings are suspect and sullied.”
To teach homeopathy, to be consistent to homeopathic philosophy - which recognizes the subjective experience of patient and homeopath - requires acknowledgement of the subjective experience of the teacher. The teacher has to share his/her experience in an honest and vulnerable way, to relate his/her personal experience to the student. The student needs to understand the context in which this is happening, to recognize the validity of the experience and to realize that the teacher is speaking from his/her experience. It can “feel” true to them but it is not necessarily the only way, it does not have to be carved in stone, it does not have to be imitated by the student in exactly the same way, and it does not have to assume an absolute truth above and beyond the experience and knowledge of other homeopaths. This is important in order to demystify the tendency toward philosophical absolutisms that have plagued homeopathy since the beginning and/or the guru style projection that can often occur between teacher and student.
Western culture and science has focused on the idea of scientific objectivity, a level of objectivity that diminishes the value of subjective, personal experience. However, homeopathy has recognized the significance and importance of subjective experience. It is essential to the homeopathic process. Therefore, the teaching of homeopathy should involve the subjective inner experience of both the teacher and student. This is part of the exploration that learning involves.
Therefore we have a challenge to look at the ways in which homeopathy can be taught, and to question what we are actually teaching. First of all, we should ask a question.
Who and what is a homeopath? What is being asked of a homeopath?
From having an image of the goal, the “homeopath” can discuss the many ways in which to get there. As mentioned we need to discuss the stress between objective and subjective definitions. By recognizing the subjective experience of homeopaths and homeopathy in general, this challenges our ability to make easy definitions of who and what is a homeopath. Our definitions are partly determined by our own experience of homeopathic practice. Do we practice as physicians, acupuncturists, chiropractors, professional homeopaths or in any other professional capacity. Also, as mentioned, identifying homeopaths within a conventional medical definition does not necessarily address the complexities of the role as a healer in a wider social context. This can affect our view and perspective on the definition of who and what is a homeopath, and therefore how we are going to train homeopaths. This diversity has created a dilemma in our own self-definition and identification.
This is especially the case in defining homeopathy within the context of medicine. What medicine is and how homeopathy fits within the current definition of medicine is one of the ongoing questions for the homeopathic profession and these are some of the challenges as homeopaths and teachers when looking at establishing models of education.
In light of these issues, the question arises as to what are the human qualities necessary to practice homeopathy? These relate to the inner, subjective qualities of a person’s experience. They directly relate to a person’s ability to communicate and cultivate the right relationship with a patient. They are the self-knowledge parts of our experience and through which the practical skills of homeopathy are expressed and nurtured. All the skills in the world will not fully mature unless the subjective experience and self-knowledge of the homeopath is realized.
If we focus too much on content, on objective models, we will diminish the spirit of homeopathy, which after all is intrinsic to homeopathic philosophy and which we all recognize is important in understanding a patient. Therefore, the training of homeopaths requires the same recognition of the internal process of students. We have tended to be more focused on the content of a knowledge-based learning and not on the process of the student and the cultivation of these qualities.
Some of the basic human qualities needed to become a homeopath are insight, intuition, compassion, maturity, common sense and humility. Humility is one of the key components, and one in which it is easiest to lose. As we acquire more knowledge, experience and results, it is easy to become identified with our success and with the knowledge this gives. This is a constant challenge for all of us when we are constantly faced with questioning our own level of knowledge. A sense of insecurity and vulnerability has to be cultivated in our practice and our teaching of homeopathy. We need to cultivate a questioning attitude toward acquired knowledge and experience and to resist rigidifying homeopathic knowledge.
When questioning methods of teaching, we also need to consider the many ways to learn.
Primarily we learn something from direct emotional experience. Although it is important to understand the knowledge based homeopathic learning, – the facts of repertory, materia medica, philosophy, medical science etc., it only really becomes our own through our emotional experience of it, through feeling it. It has to be real. We learn through experience. This quality of learning can be achieved in many ways. The most important way is by actually doing homeopathy – by taking a case, by feeling the experience, by taking responsibility for the process and the analysis and gaining feedback from the teacher.
But it can also come from a dynamic passionate lecture on a remedy, or a particular part of homeopathic philosophy. If the teacher is living what he/she is teaching, it will get across but it will only become the student’s own experience through their willingness to learn, to cultivate the discrimination and self-knowledge necessary for learning. This has to be encouraged in schools. A student can go to a good school, get good information and yet still not have the emotional conviction, confidence and personal skills necessary for successful practice. Information, however it is taught is not enough without attention to the inner process of the student. It is the emotional experience of the student that connects the intellectual with the spiritual; in other words, that it really has meaning for their life.
Therefore, homeopathy has to be seen as a vocation, not merely a job. You can’t really just do it for the money. Without the keenest interest to help someone, to really listen and want to get to know what is happening, then our ability as a practitioner and as a teacher is limited. The homeopath has to have a deep interest to help a person. Mere intellectual knowledge is not enough. Even the most intelligent and bright person, who has a strong command of materia medica and general knowledge, may often not find the correct remedy without this fundamental interest in the other person.
If both a teacher and student bring their heart to their exploration of learning and teaching then a fusion can occur where there is a truly organic evolution being experienced and there are no longer clear distinctions between teacher and student. This is where the art and science of homeopathy meet and which expresses the holistic fusion that is homeopathic medicine.
