Introduction
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Notes Introduction 1. F. Loetz has claimed that the ‘sick’ (were) turned into ‘patients’ in the 19th century (Francisca Loetz, Vom Kranken zum Patienten. ‘Medikalisierung’ und medizinische Vergesellschaftung am Beispiel Badens 1750–1850. Stuttgart 1993). But her finding is based on a somewhat anachronistic modern understand- ing of the term ‘patient’ as a (largely passive) partner in the therapeutic interaction. The term ‘patient’ (or ‘pacient’, ‘patiens’) was quite common already in the late Middle Ages though it was associated more closely than it is today with the original meaning of ‘patiens’ (Latin for ‘suffering’). 2. See the programmatic plea by Roy Porter, ‘The patient’s view. Doing medical history from below’, Theory and society 14 (1985), 175–98. 3. For a good overview of changing issues and approaches see Frank Huisman/ John Harley Warner (eds), Locating medical history. The stories and their mean- ings. Baltimore/London 2004. 4. Claudine Herzlich/Janine Pierret, Malades d’hier et malades d’aujourd’hui: de la mort collective au devoir de guérison. Paris 1984; Dorothy Porter/Roy Porter, Patient’s progress. Doctors and doctoring in eighteenth-century England. Cambridge/ Oxford 1989; iidem, In sickness and in health. The British experience, 1650–1850. New York 1989; Barbara Duden, The woman beneath the skin: a doctor’s patients in eighteenth-century Germany. Cambridge, MA 1991 (German orig. 1987); Lucinda McCray Beier, ‘In sickness and in health: A seventeenth-century family’s experi- ence’, in Roy Porter (ed.), Patients and practitioners. Lay-perceptions of medicine in pre-industrial society. London 1985, pp. 101–28; Robert Jütte, Ärzte, Heiler und Patienten. Medizinischer Alltag in der frühen Neuzeit. Munich/Zürich 1991; Jens Lachmund/Gunnar Stollberg, Patientenwelten. Krankheit und Medizin vom späten 18. bis zum frühen 20. Jahrhundert im Spiegel von Autobiographien. Opladen 1995; Christoph Lumme, Höllenfleisch und Heiligtum. Der menschliche Körper im Spiegel autobiographischer Texte des 16. Jahrhunderts. Frankfurt 1996. For surveys of work in this area see Katharina Ernst, ‘Patientengeschichte. Die kulturhistorische Wende in der Medizinhistoriographie’, in: Ralf Bröer (ed.), Eine Wissenschaft emanzipiert sich: Die Medizinhistoriographie von der Aufklärung bis zur Postmoderne. Pfaffenweiler 1999, pp. 97–108; Flurin Condrau, ‘The patient’s view meets the clinical gaze’, Social history of medicine 20 (2007), 525–40; Eberhard Wolff, ‘Perspektiven der Patientengeschichtsschreibung`, in Norbert Paul/Schlich (eds), Medizingeschichte. Aufgaben, Probleme, Perspektiven. Frankfurt/New York 1998, pp. 311–30; for recent case studies see: Miriam Schriewer, ‘Kann der Körper gen- esen, wo die Seele so gewaltig krankt?` –Weibliche Gemüts- und Nervenleiden in der Patientenkorrespondenz Hahnemanns am Beispiel der Kantorstochter Friederike Lutze (1798–1878). Cologne 2011 [forthcoming] and Judith Oxfort, ‘Meine Nerven tan- zen’. Die Krankheiten der Madame de Graffigny (1695–1758). Cologne 2010. 5. Michael Stolberg, Heilkunde zwischen Staat und Bevölkerung. Angebot und Annahme medizinischer Versorgung in Oberfranken im frühen 19. Jahrhundert. 219 220 Notes Unpubl. med. diss. Munich 1986; Loetz, Vom Kranken [see note 1]; Annemarie Kinzelbach, Gesundbleiben, Krankwerden, Armsein in der frühneuzeitlichen Gesellschaft. Gesunde und Kranke in den Reichsstädten Überlingen und Ulm, 1500–1700. Stuttgart 1995; Laurence W. B. Brockliss/Colin Jones, The medi- cal world of early modern France. Oxford 1997. 6. Cf. for example Lumme’s claim that laypeople in the 16th century attributed all their diseases essentially to pathological phlegm (Lumme, Höllenfleisch [see note 4]). 7. Gail Kern Paster, The body embarrassed. Drama and the disciplines of shame in early modern England. Ithaca, NY 1993; Michael C. Schoenfeldt, Bodies and selves in early modern England. Physiology and inwardness in Spenser, Shakespeare, Herbert, and Milton. Cambridge 1999. 8. This reservation is supported by the fact that the images and conceptions of the physiological and pathological processes in the female body that Duden finds in her source are remarkably similar to those advanced by physicians in Georg Ernst Stahl’s ambit. Storch, as Duden knows, was an enthusiastic follower of Stahl. 9. For an overview see Michel Feher et al. (eds), Fragments for a history of the human body. New York 1989; David Hillman/Carla Mazzio, The body in parts. Fantasies of corporeality in early modern Europe. New York/London 1997; Michael Stolberg, ‘Körpergeschichte und Medizingeschichte’, in: Bröer, Medizinhistoriographie [see note 4], pp. 85–95; Heiko Stoff, ‘Diskurse und Erfahrungen. Ein Rückblick auf die Körpergeschichte der neunziger Jahre’, Zeitschrift für Sozialgeschichte des 20. und 21. Jahrhunderts 14 (1999), 142–60; for bibliographic surveys see Barbara Duden, ‘A repertory of body history’, in: Feher et al., Fragments, pp. 471–578, and Maren Lorenz, Leibhaftige Vergangenheit. Einführung in die Körpergeschichte. Tübingen 2000, pp. 174– 238. 10. Jacques Revel/Jean-Pierre Peter, ‘Le corps. L’homme malade et son histoire’, in: Jacques LeGoff/Pierre Nora (eds), Faire de l’histoire. Nouveaux objets. Paris 1974, pp. 169–91. 11. Bryan S. Turner, Regulating bodies. Essays in medical sociology. London/New York 1992; Elisabeth List/Erwin Fiala (eds), Leib Maschine Bild. Körperdiskurse der Moderne und Postmoderne. Vienna 1997; Deborah Lupton, Medicine as cul- ture. Illness, disease and the body in Western societies. London 1994. 12. With the three levels I primarily mean to distinguish between different lev- els of analysis. By contrast, there is the distinction between essentialist and non-essentialist positions which aims primarily at the respective underlying philosophical premises; cf. Lorenz, Leibhaftige Vergangenheit [see note 9]. 13. This refers to a type of historical anthropology that takes its orientation more or less from cultural history; see for example Bob Scribner/Ronnie Po-Chia Hsia (eds), Problems in the historical anthropology of early mod- ern Europe. Wiesbaden 1997. It does not refer to currents in philosophical anthropology that lean more toward an essentialist, trans-historical con- ception of the body, as for example in Christoph Wulf (ed.), Vom Menschen. Handbuch Historische Anthropologie. Weinheim/Basel 1997; see also Gert Dressel, Historische Anthropologie. Eine Einführung. Vienna 1996; Richard von Dülmen, Historische Anthropologie. Entwicklung, Probleme, Aufgaben. Cologne 2000. Notes 221 14. Mary Douglas, Natural symbols. Explorations in cosmology. London 1996; eadem, Purity and danger. An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. Harmondsworth 1970. 15. For a critical survey see Ronald C. Simons/Charles C. Hughes, The culture- bound syndromes. Folk illnesses of psychiatric and anthropological interest. Dordrecht 1985. 16. Raymond Prince, ‘The concept of culture-bound syndromes. Anorexia ner- vosa and brain-fag’, Social science and medicine 21 (1985), 197–203; Cheryl Ritenbaugh, ‘Obesity as a culture-bound syndrome’, Culture, medicine and psychiatry 6 (1982), 347–61; Caroline Giles Banks, ‘“Culture” in culture- bound syndromes. The case of anorexia nervosa’, Social science and medicine 34 (1992), 867–84; Mari Rodin, ‘The social construction of premenstrual syndrome’, ibid. 35 (1992), 49–56; Michael G. Kenny, ‘Latah: the symbol- ism of a putative mental disorder’, Culture, medicine and psychiatry 2 (1978), 209–31; Thomas W. Johnson, ‘Premenstrual syndrome as a Western culture- specific disorder’, ibid. 11 (1987), 337–56. 17. Cf. the ground-breaking work by Peter L. Berger/Thomas Luckmann, The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London 1967; major early contributions to the study of social construction in medi- cine were P. Wright/A. Treacher (eds), The problem of medical knowledge. Examining the social construction of medicine. Edinburgh 1982; M. R. Bury, ‘Social constructionism and the development of medical sociology’, Sociology of health & illness 8 (1986), 137–69; on the concept of ‘framing’ see below. 18. Cf. Michel Foucault, ‘La politique de la santé au XVIIIe siècle’, in: idem et al., Les machines à guérir (aux origines de l’hôpital moderne). Brussels/Liège 1979, pp. 11–21; idem, The birth of the clinic. An archaeology of medical perception. London 1973; idem, Discipline and punish. The birth of the prison. London 1977; idem, Madness and civilization. A history of insanity in the age of reason. New York 1965. 19. To name only a few works: Alphonso Lingis, Foreign bodies. New York/London 1994; David Armstrong, Political anatomy of the body. Medical knowledge in Britain in the twentieth century. Cambridge 1983; see also Turner, Regulating bodies [see note 11]. 20. Along similar lines, Friedrich Nietzsche had already accused the idealist phi- losophy of his day of ‘Leibverachtung’, that is, of being contemptuous of the body; cf. Kogaku Arifuku, ‘Der Leib als große Vernunft bei Nietzsche und das Problem des Leibes in der Zen-Theorie Dogens’, Geschichte und Gegenwart 17 (1998), 156–79. 21. Michel Foucault, The history of sexuality, 3 vols. New York 1978–86. 22. Cf. Steven Shapin/Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the air pump. Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton 1985; Steven Shapin, A social his- tory of truth. Civility and science in seventeenth century England. Chicago/ London 1995; Bruno Latour, Science in action. How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA 1987; David J. Hess, Science