Complementary Kinesiology: Why It Is Not Wise to Choose Sides or Work Alone

Abstract

In this essay I argue in favor of a holistic vision for our field under the heading of complementary kinesiology. I argue that battles over reified dichotomies and even compromise solutions have impeded our progress as a profession. I describe the theory of complementation as an alternative. I say it is a strange and paradoxical way of conceptualizing our values and our direction, one that is difficult to grasp intellectually. But I also suggest that it helps us see how and why there really are no “sides” in our profession and why “working alone” is not a viable option. I argue that complementation will allow us to be a more flexible, effective, and otherwise smarter field. Thus, I conclude that any difficulties inherent in understanding complementation are well worth the effort.

Keywords:

• Philosophy
• kinesiology
• values
• complementary

Notes

1. A more common term for complementation, at least in the philosophic literature, is holism. I could have just as easily entitled this article “holistic kinesiology.” However, the language of holism is overused and has come to mean any number of different things. Everyone these days, it seems, is a self-professed holist. Thus, I decided to borrow fresher terminology from Kelso and Engstrom’s book The Complementary Nature.

2. Karl Newell (1990) was on the same general track when he noted reciprocal, dynamical relationships among skill, theory, and practice. He noted that the putative independence of knowledge types is “dissipating.” The theory of complementation provides reasons for this trend.

3. Over the years I have found three philosophic resources to be particularly useful in attempting to unravel the mysteries of complementation or holism: (1) Continental philosophy—particularly writings by Merleau-Ponty, Marcel, and Sartre; (2) American pragmatism and the work of William James and John Dewey; and (3) Buddhism as interpreted for the Western world by such scholars as D. T. Suzuki and as experienced in my own practice of meditation. It has also been a delightful surprise to see similar ideas coming from empirical science in the psychology of dynamical systems, the ordered and unpredictable features of chaos theory, the paradoxical tenets of quantum physics, and other forms of non-dualistic, non-linear, and non-reductionist thinking.

4. One can picture additional ways of setting this up by using other complementary pairs. Also, while I will work in two dimensions, I could add a third axis. If I were to do so, my first choice would be a distinction that trades on the following complementary pairs: discipline˜profession, theory˜practice, researcher˜practitioner, thinking˜doing, and knowing that˜knowing how to. But once again, for this article, I want to keep things simple and will work with only two axes.