Wholistic or holistic?
The hot keywords found in the alternative health, integral movement and new age paradigms.
This question has aroused on many minds. Is it just a matter of different spelling but identical meanings? Is one an incorrect spelling? Is it just an Australian thing? Is it a North American thing?
As mentioned in this blog, there is a difference but for other resources, there is none. In the perspective that there is a difference, some sources say ‘holistic’ applies to more therapeutics that have more of a metaphysical component to it. eg. homeopathy, Ayurveda, Reiki, etc. whereas wholistic is seeing more than what is being shown but without a metaphysical part to it. (Hmm, like how a mechanic views a car?) Confusing! Is it not the same? Another arguement is that wholistic embodies the word ‘whole’ so it really is mind, body, soul. Yet holistic has ‘hole’ which some could believe it is incomplete.
Yet Merriam’s dictionary for holistic is: relating to or concerned with wholes or with complete systems rather than with the analysis of, treatment of, or dissection into parts (holistic medicine attempts to treat both the mind and body) and (holistic ecology views humans and the environment as a single system). That to me sounds identical to ‘wholistic’.
In the medical dictionary, holistic means: relating to holism; emphasizing the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its parts; concerned with wholes rather than analysis or separation into parts. Wholistic means: the theory that living matter or reality is made up of organic or unified wholes that are greater than the simple sums of their parts; a holistic investigation or system of treatment.
Historically, the two words have different meanings but are obviously inter-related. As to which is politically correct? Well....perception I suppose. Isn't it all?