Question; was Andrew Taylor Still’s understanding of structure related to, “the bits” or did he have a much wider perspective?
If we consider structure not to be the parts themselves but the physical arrangement of the parts, then quite clearly we have what could be considered a holistic anatomy. If we understand structure in that way, then we do indeed have structure governing function, because function as a holistic concept is dependent upon the arrangement of the parts as much as it is upon the physiological relationship between the parts.
Osteopaths have rarely claimed to change the structure in their treatment of the human body but usually refer to altering the function to make it more efficient. It is interesting to ask an osteopath what is meant by “changing function”. It can only be explained in terms of changing the relationship between structures. This highlights the distinction between property and function. No one claims to change the property of a system or tissue, but it is claimed to be possible to change function. For this reason, holism appears to be a very suitable framework for evaluating and treating human dysfunction. Therefore the Osteopath’s task is to decide on the system or subsystem which is acting out of harmony in a particular patient and from an understanding of normal function, be able to identify the ways in which the relationship with other parts is not functioning.
Osteopaths acknowledge that the parts are there and have particular properties, but our emphasis centers on the way in which the parts interact. This is not new to osteopathy which has a long history of resistance to syndromes as descriptions of patients’ conditions and of trying to fit problems into particular categories, but perhaps it has not been fully appreciated within a holistic context.
Stephen Tyreman 1992. Concepts for Osteopathic Health Care, Section 5. Holism. BSO course notes (extracts)