Medical Anthropology - Essay Example

?We have often used the terms of “illness” and “disease” interchangeably. This is most likely because the medical field refer to the two terms essentially with the same level of likelihood. But to understand these terms in an anthropological perspective takes a whole level and depth of meaning. Objectively, “disease is a measurable pathological condition of the body. In contrast, illness is a feeling of not being normal and health (O’niel 2010)”. Illness pertains more to the psychological feelings of imbalance and not being in a state of optimum health. Given these two definitions, it leads us to the assumption that some illnesses may be caused by certain diseases but these diseases are not necessarily a result of being feeling ill. An understanding of these two basic concepts is important especially when medical specialists are to diagnose patients who are from a culture that is different from their own. Social scientist have always lobbied to acknowledge the socio-historical upbringing if we are to understand a phenomenon, and the medical field should not be excluded from that. In fact, many literature like Joralemon’s “Exploring Medical Anthropology”, argues for the equal recognition of the societal context when giving diagnosis. This is because the socio-cultural aspect of a person will greatly affect his or her perception of himself in relation to the kind of illness the person is experiencing. Medical professionals may even be surprised at how much relevance these “inner thoughts” bear to help them discover the true cause of certain diseases. Closely related to the terms disease and illness is also another controversial and contested subject in the medical science arena – the notion of “self”. Since the world has adapted a purely scientific measure to assess and solve problems of the “objective” reality, it undermined the importance of incorporating the “subjective” social reality that an individual or population is deeply rooted at. As a result, we humans have been reduced to biological beings that can be tinkered so professionals may be able to arrive at solutions for our specific health problems. We are asked of our medical history but never of our social background. Chief complaints are all a matter of physical manifestations, but never a question of how the person sees and understands the pain. This became the trend after the emergence of a long-standing hard and fast boundary between hard science and soft science, between real and folk medicine and both social science and natural science isolated each other when in fact, it should complement each other and should work hand in hand. The emergence of a new branch of anthropology eventually proved the abovementioned notion fallacious and insufficient; a serious claim against something that has prevailed during the majority of the scientific revolution. Medical anthropology provided a platform to bridge the gap between the social and natural sciences. After all, what the natural sciences discover or learn; it will in due course apply to social beings. Hence, it is irrelevant to create a strict dichotomy between social and natural sciences especially when we are in the pursuit of understanding cultural-specific diseases and illnesses and arriving at long-term solutions to address it. And Joralemon’s book provided an extensive discussion on the importance of incorporating the abovementioned socio-environmental aspect in the medical realm. The introduction of culture as an important facet in the business of health simultaneously (and perhaps unintentionally) evolved with the notion of “self”. In anthropological terms, there have been many definitions of the “self” and these include the following: (1) the self as the individual body, understood in the sense of the lived experience of the body self – hence, referring to the physical aspect. (2) The second definition of self ascertains the representational use of the body as a natural symbol with which to think about nature, society, and culture (Mary Douglas 1970), and (3) the third concept of self transcends the physical and social aspect as it is centers on the philosophical analysis of the self – hence, as an entity that must be regulated as it is naturally endowed with agency1. Hallowel suggests, as cited in Joralemon’s literature, that the conception of self or “self-awareness is a universal characteristic of humankind” and follows five patterns of features of personhood/ selfhood. Firstly, the self is not distinguished from other selves. Hence, when we objectify our identity, we almost always define ourselves according to how different or similar we are from others. Secondly, Hallowel pointed out that the self is linked to objects in the world. This goes to show that apart from the connections we establish with social beings, we also create a kind of identity relative to our environmental context. Thirdly, we conceptualize ourselves in a continuum of space and time. This is why we categorize ourselves as being part of Generation X, Generation Y, Baby Boomers, etc. Fourthly would be to see “what motivates the self” which is closely knitted to the fifth and last pattern which is to seek “what normative rules apply to the self” in the everyday living of life. These concepts have become reasonably relevant especially when the individual is living in this modern and contemporary era; where the sense of “self” is especially underscored. The increasing media influence over perfection distorted these conceptions and have resulted to extreme effects such as anorexia and obesity, which are now considered illnesses that have spread cross culturally. Because the individual self is socially related and environmentally connected, the perception of an individual about his own self is more likely to conform to what is normative. To further point out, Joralemon cited the example of weight-lifting and the intake of enhancement drugs to hasten the process of achieving a “socially ideal” physical body. As more and more people engage in extreme measures to become socially acceptable, the identity becomes a problematic not only in the medical science world – because the individual constitutes altering the natural physical course of our body functions. It also becomes a problem in the social world as the individual determines his acceptability vis-a-vis the standards of his social circle. The most common motivating factor is how to become accepted by a certain group of people who shares the same interests, etc. And though the illness begins with the individual, the complex networks of relationships will “contract” the idea and may even succumb to the pressures of becoming “acceptable”. Another case in point is the two extreme and universally rampant health problems – anorexia and obesity. Tall, skinny to the bones, flawless, beautiful women are revered. They are, at the least, given opportunities to wear signature brands, they are highly paid, and they live the high life. These are features projected as not for the general public but for a few chosen ones. Obesity, on the other hand, is a result of either genetically and/or synthetically modifying the substance of our food to fit the palate or by fallacious advertising that the abundance of good food will foster relationships; because food, in the first place, is always a constant source of good experience - hence, a valid source of happiness. Think McDonald’s and their happy meals. Moreover, obesity has become a consequence of a cultural trend of overeating. Though people are necessarily informed about the risks of going overweight, there’s just no stopping the food trips especially when it entails nothing but pleasant experiences with loved ones. Because our psychology is conditioned to pursue what is comfortable and generally happy, we continue to eat without being intentional in gaining more weight. Another example of how the concept of self is essential in dealing with modern medical procedures comes from young adolescents who drink growth supplements to enhance or gain more height advantage. Some extreme cases include cutting of the shin bones and grafting of stem cells between the disjointed fibula to regenerate new and longer set of bones. Though the process is long and painful, desired height can be achieved. ll of the abovementioned scenario exemplifies how we tend to forget where our culture begins and where nature ends. Further, the materialism as embodied by our capitalist society has put much weight on the body as the ultimate symbol of self. Add to that is the increasing influence of the media over perfection even to the tiniest bit of detail in our body. Because the self (physical, social, and philosophical) is constantly bombarded with these kinds of physical and psychological pressures, we deliberately try to alter what we can in order for us to be at par with these “standards”. As a consequence, many have suffered psychological illnesses that are being manifested in the physical body. The natural reaction of the medical sciences towards the aforementioned problems is only at the level of what is directly observable and what can be altered. Hence, pharmaceutical companies are tasked to produce medications that will enable or disable certain hormones to produce proteins such as those that will trigger growth, increase metabolism, or tone muscles. An additional example of how pure medical science have provided alternative is that of losing weight quick. It used to be a matter of exercise and proper diet, but the medical science field offered a more complex alternative, yet a scheme that equally distorts the natural processes of the body. Measured over time and in a collective, this fad of becoming skinny and/or macho becomes a psycho-cultural sickness. As a result, the society psychologically suffers and this suffering is manifested through unhealthy physical conditions. Medical anthropology then comes in handy to this picture as it abstracts the experiences of the “self” as a representation of the general health status of the community or society. By understanding how the media has created and distorted the “culturally normative” conception of self, medical specialists are given the opportunity not to solely rely only on the limited lens of natural science to provide medication. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with the wisdom of established hard science, it is also absolutely insufficient. In the perspective of medical anthropology, it is only important to look at what is observable but puts equal emphasis on the complex sub-contexts and its interplay with the overall health industry. With the abovementioned example, we can safely assume that political agenda egged on by materialism was successfully incorporated in different guises such as “beauty”, “wellness”, “productivity”, etc. Everyone is encouraged to be health conscious, yet our media constantly pushes for “standards” of beauty. The value of anthropology in the medical field lies in the fact that the solutions are basically embedded in our culture. As Joralemon would put it, “the technologies themselves are rooted in specific understandings of the self, but they are also marshaled to promote alternative constructions of personhood. The ethical debates that swirl around the use of these technologies are apparently irresolvable precisely because they trace back to self theories that differ profoundly in several of Hallowell’s orientations, especially self/other and time/space” (Joralemon 2009) . Medical anthropology is not only valuable for understanding the socio-historical contexts of specific illnesses, but it also opens opportunities to explore technological advancements as appropriated to our society. Common to the medical anthropology (of biotechnologies) is a concern for the social relations and economic interests that shape the development of new instruments and procedures in medicine (Joralemon 2009). Medical anthropologists carry with them the responsibility of understanding how novel and innovative technologies are actually a product of a long-standing knowledge of folk culture. References Used: Collins, Francis S. 2011. Reengineering Translational Science: The Time Is Right Vol. 3, Issue 90, p. 90cm17 . Online Media. Joralemon, Donald. Exploring Medical Anthropology: 3rd Edition.. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. September 3, 2009. Print. O’Neil, Dennis. Explanations of Illness. 2002. Online Media. Sokefeld, Martin. Debating Self, Identity, and Culture in Anthropology. University of Chicago Press. 1999. Online Media. Read More