standardization vs individualization

There is a big push to standardize Chinese medicine in China today. It has been going on for at least 6 decades, and is still a guiding principle in the ongoing reform and development of how CM is taught and practiced.

Comparing Western and Chinese medicine, one of the most noticeable differences is in the degree of standardization and individualization apparent in education and practice. WM is highly standardized, across all fields and disciplines, and is taught in more or less the same way in every school and every country. In CM, on the other hand, even the basic knowledge is interpreted and used in different ways in different fields and by different teachers, even within the 'Academic School' style of Chinese medicine that is taught at universities in China. When you look at how CM is taught in other countries, some with ancient traditions of their own, the contrast with WM becomes even more apparent.

Now, is this because 'standardization as a guiding principle for development' is a new phenomenon in Chinese medicine? Has the opposite been true? Is CM an example of a medical art where individualism has been celebrated and taken to an extreme?

A quick glance at the textual evidence shows that the latter is impossible - throughout the long history of CM we can see remarkable consistency in the basic knowledge, including the location of acupoints, the functions of individual herbs, and the associations of the five phase elements.

The bronze man statue, for example, and the book of the same name, are examples of a push towards standardization of acupoint names and location.

The Ben Cao Gang Mu is an example of the same push towards standardization in the effects of individual medicinals.

However, do these represent a deliberate effort to standardize, or do they represent an effort to record the collective knowledge of the time, in order that it not be lost?

a good question, very good question indeed...