The Massage Politics Sheet
No Hype — No
Cheerleading — No
Hidden Details
Bringing you hard facts & clear analysis since 2002
31 December 2002
Over the last week, my efforts in updating my home page and putting together this page on massage politics drew me into looking at standards and guidelines for such creations. This in turn, reminded me of the long history that the Internet has had in the process of getting people together to hammer out rough consensus towards standards of technology and best practices. References to that history and process are at
This process of design and standardization has also been cognizant that not all share the same needs and that accessibility is a worthy goal in itself. This shows up in the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). Realizing and being flexible to the fact that not all people learn and practice in the same way is something that I believe is particularly applicable to massage. More on the neurophysiology of this observation can be found on pediatrician Mel Levine's site All Kinds of Minds and in his book A Mind at a Time.
What the Internet standards processes have is a history of getting affected/interested parties together, hammering out a draft, working through any objections on the originating working group, and then putting it all out for wider review and comments. Eventually, something comes out that has had wide exposure to review and criticism and has responded to these inputs to get what's simply called rough consensus.
To me, it is this very kind of exposure of specifics that is lacking in the field of massage. From my perspective, it would seem, that long before the massage profession considers giving anything to the legislature in terms of massage governance, we need to get much more done in terms of specifics of language and goals on our own turf. Whatever is brought forth will ultimately get this scrutiny and comment, the question is about whether the venue will be our own working groups or whether the the critical comments are conveyed directly to legislators.
Many times those advocating licensing complain of a lack of standards that hampers the advance of massage into collaborating with allopathic health care. While I agree about the lack of standards, I disagree that we should look to a legislature to create such standards.
I can see at least some diversity of venues and types of practice: basic touch (including chair massage), relaxation massage, spa massage and modalities, sports massage (perhaps multi-tiered between casual and elite athletes), orthopedic/injury work, structural massage, pregnancy and prenatal massage, pediatric massage, hospital-based massage, geriatrics, massage with abuse & trauma survivors, …. These categories obviously have overlaps.
In each case, I would suggest that we as a profession need to get together working groups of the interested parties in each venue and hammer out specifics of goals, practice, and knowledge that we can substantiate. In my mind I see a table with columns like venue, goals, training needs, and justification of such needs as to how they meet specific needs of practice. Whatever comes out from the groups then needs time for review and comments and revision(s) until again a rough consensus can be obtained. This process should not just include massage people, but those also with whom they will work in the various environments: trainers, physicians, nurses, psychologists and trauma counselors, …. Then perhaps we can meaningfully talk about guidelines for education and residency training in each area.
Such guidelines can be used by schools in devising curricula, students in planning their training programs, and employers in considering whom they want to hire. Since there is nothing in law about any of this, there is flexibility to meet different situations. A hospital, for example, in an area not swamped with people meeting the guidelines might choose to bring someone on with less training and experience and then send them to workshops. It also very much allows some venues for those who don't do well in academic settings (see my white paper or the Oct/Nov 2002 issue of Massage & Bodywork (still in bookstores several days ago)) and some for those who relish every nuance of academic digging -- in short, it values our diversity.
I particularly like the concept from the creation of Internet protocols that these things start as drafts and only becomes standards when they are widely accepted and used. This perspective of use adds the shot of humility need by those who would go after the creation of standards.
The upshot to all of the above is that "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" when it comes to creating good standards. Writer Robert Heinlein encoded that as TANSTAAFL in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, a story strongly advocating that people need to be responsible for their own welfare. Good standards of education and practice certainly aren't likely to come out of some law requiring a round number of hours of training. If we want standards that are both useful and that accommodate our diversity, we will have to roll up our own sleeves and set to work.
28 December 2002
The California legislative information site has a good overview of the process by which a bill is written, introduced, and moved towards becoming a law. See <http://leginfo.public.ca.gov/bil2lawx.html>. This is an appendix to the larger document "A Guide for Accessing California Legislative Information on the Internet, <http://leginfo.public.ca.gov/guide.html#Info_Available>. Web sites for the state senate and state assembly are at <http://www.sen.ca.gov/> and <http://www.assembly.ca.gov/defaulttext.asp>, respectively. These pages include links to the respective standing committees through which any massage bill would have to pass. Both houses of the California legislature have standing committees on "business and professions" and "health".
Perhaps the major motivation for those advocating state regulation is relief from onerous local ordinances, a topic I've explored more fully in my white paper on governance. There seems, in general, to be an unfortunate situation that high fees and bad law don't result in the natural consequence of unavailability of client desired massage services. Either we are too willing to pay the fees or are operating practices in "stealth mode", breaking the local laws and consequently the ethics codes of most massage organizations.
Local agencies have apparently been more responsive in places like the Coachella Valley with a large hotel-based and tourist driven spa industry. Two aspects of professional behavior clearly needed are consumer education on the benefits of massage to increase demand coupled with not practicing "in the closet" or where the fees are exorbitant — in short, using good business practices to run our massage practices.
23 December 2002
With the now near certainty that an AMTA (American Massage Therapy Association) promoted massage licensing bill will be introduced in the 2003-2004 session of the California legislature, I'm starting this "blogger" page (a term derived from web logger) as a source both of alternative opinion and of legislative and lobbying information. According to a 17 December article by Hartford Courant staff writer Kevin Canfield, web-based bloggers played a major role in bringing Trent Lott's ill-considered comments to public and traditional media attention. Blogger Andrew Sullivan also has a good article on this communication phenomenon. At least in terms of information flow and interpersonal communization, the world has changed from what it was not too long ago. A major goal of this site will be to encourage wider practitioner participation and input than would occur from organizational processes.
One of my corespondents has brought the information that January 24 is the last day to submit bill requests to the California Office of Legislative Counsel, and February 21 is the last day for bills to be introduced. Thus, the AMTA will have to move soon if they want to move is this session of the California legislature. As more information becomes available, I'll post it here.
One of the more thought provoking considerations is that this action is being contemplated at a time when California is facing a $35 Billion budget deficit and is additionally being held to high-cost energy contracts made during the manipulated energy shortage. It can be expected that money will be taken from every nook of public assistance and education and that a substantial firelight between Republicans and Democrats will like ensue over taxes . Licensing boards may eventually be self-funding, but their startup costs come initially from (now empty) state coffers. The existence of a board does not guarantee its staffing or effectiveness. Currently, the Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, for example, is having to reduce staffing and cannibalize their funding for outreach and enforcement in order to stage examinations next April <http://www.dca.ca.gov/pels/>.
California legislative bills can be tracked online. Once a bill is introduced, you can register online for e-mail notification of actions taken on the bill. The URL is http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/. You can also check the registration of hobbyist employers at the California Secretary of State site. You can find lobbyist information at http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Lobbying/. A lot of legislative contact information is available form the California Voter Foundation <http://www.calvoter.org/>. As I get a bit more time and the need arises, I'll post links to relevant legislative committee members.
A Yahoo Groups e-mail list has been started for massage practitioners opposed to licensing, assuming that any bill introduced will follow the lockstep 500+ hour practice act format. The hope is to stop such a bill in committee by calling Senators and Representatives, when the time comes. See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cal_Fed_mas/. As I become aware of information not yet posted to this list, I'll post it. Thus, the list can hopefully be used by those desiring e-mail notification of legislative actions and mobilizations.
I've previously written an extensive examination of massage governance issues in California. This is available at http://www.ramblemuse.com/articles/masg_governance_rev.pdf. Note that this is a PDF file, requiring you to have a free Adobe Acrobat reader installed. Click on the yellow box in the navigation bar at the left of this page.
I also keep a page of resources for massage activists. For this, see http://www.ramblemuse.com/articles/masg_activist.html .
I also write a column for Massage Today, available online at http://www.massagetoday.com/columnists/grant/. I've expressed a considerable number of my thoughts and perceptions over the last two years of writing my column.
Finally, the Oct/Nov 2002 issue of ABMP's (Association of Bodywork & Massage Professionals) magazine Massage & Bodywork contains an extensive review and discussion of many of the educational issues and the issues of cultural and mental diversity and part-time practice that prompt my personal opposition to licensing. To order back issues, see http://www.massageandbodywork.com/reprint.htm.
Finally, feel free to write with information, questions, and comments. While my schedule occasionally jams up, I'll do what I can to respond either directly or via this web page. Please also pass information on to your colleagues who may be less prone to browse the web. Finally, I'd appreciate knowing about printed publications such as the S.F. Bay Areas Common Ground and Open Exchange or regional newspapers suitable for short articles informing practitioners and clients about any bill introduced and its collateral effects. As stated above, my ultimate goal is to make it easy for massage practitioners in California, whether or not members of organizations, to be informed and provide legislative input towards their own needs and perceptions.
Thanks for your attention and particularly thanks in advance for any and all help in making this page a useful information channel.
...Keith (keg@ramblemuse.com)
