> Photography, just as 'alternative photography' is alternative to everyday
> photography. The osteopaths and the acupuncturists chose 'complementary' as
> an alternative to 'alternative' and everybody knows what 'complementary
> means in that context.
Everyday? Everyday for many may refer to snapshot photography--meaning
take it to the store for processing, or commercial photography--meaning
another way of being machine made.
But the major problem is that words such as alternative and complementary
convey a sense that what is being designated is obscure to what is well
recognized. Continual use of these words perpetuates obscurity--the
field always pointing away from itself to something prominent.
Another point. Looking at the medical example mentioned by Terry,
complementary fields are thought to be answerable to allopathic
medicine--or so the allopaths vigorously argue. Claims by complementary
medicines are criticized and rejected for not following the allopathic
model of research. Suggest the authority is elsewhere and you're
answerable to conditions set by others.
Why name an identity by pointing elsewhere? The mark of maturity is
to be able to create a name that refers to what is essential in its own
right.
Ron
----------