From the Hands of Quacks: Aural Surgery, Deafness, and the Making of a Specialty in 19Th Century London
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
FROM THE HANDS OF QUACKS: AURAL SURGERY, DEAFNESS, AND THE MAKING OF A SPECIALTY IN 19TH CENTURY LONDON BY JAIPREET VIRDI-DHESI A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology University of Toronto © Copyright Jaipreet Virdi-Dhesi 2014 “FROM THE HANDS OF QUACKS:” AURAL SURGERY, DEAFNESS, AND THE MAKING OF A SURGICAL SPECIALITY IN 19TH CENTURY LONDON JAIPREET VIRDI-DHESI DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY INSTITUTE FOR THE HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO, NOVEMBER 2014 ABSTRACT This dissertation critically examines the social and medical perceptions of nineteenth-century British aural surgery, a subset of medical practice providing treatments for aural diseases. Tracing the efforts of a particular group of London-based aural practitioners (“aurists”) and their visions of a specialist identity, this dissertation explores how medical legitimacy was founded within a field constantly battling accusations of charlatanry. As aurists fiercely competed with each other for positions, status, and patients, accusations of quackery weakened their attempts to forge authority as skilled experts. Questions of credibility grazed the boundaries between authority and legitimacy as aurists not only defended their speciality from the broader medical occupation, but also from a social prejudice that deemed deafness medically incurable. Aurists thus used the rhetoric of “medical science” to invoke particular representations on how they wanted to define their surgical authority and be perceived by the broader medical community. From an examination of various strategies aurists used to construct their surgical authority, this dissertation highlights the resonances between quackery, entrepreneurialism, and legitimatization; “quack” was a highly ambiguous term generally used to disqualify an adversary ii or competitor, or to dismiss a particular medical procedure or technology. This dissertation is divided into five chapters, with each chapter showcasing the varied ways in which aurists constructed their identity and shaped their claims to legitimacy: from publicly disputing rules against medical intervention at deaf asylums, creating specialty hospitals, increasing publications of aural treatises, and developing newer diagnostic, therapeutic, and assistive instruments. iii “Method of Examining the Ear” Source: Anton Von Tröltsch, Treatise on the Diseases of the Ear, trans. D.B. St. John Roosa (William Wood & Co.: New York, 1869) iv For the women who first told me there are stories worth remembering: My mother, Paramjit Virdi, and My teacher, the late Mrs. Janet Ower v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I first encountered the story of aurists while searching through the stacks of the “Old Catalogue” of Gerstein Library for a book on nineteenth-century anatomy. The title of the book now escapes me, for where it should have been on the shelf, was John Harrison Curtis’ A Treatise on the Diseases of the Ear. I sat there on the floor, gently flipping through the pages, and finding myself lost in Curtis’ detailed descriptions of deafness. A quick Google search further piqued my curiosity as descriptions of Curtis as a “notorious aurist” seemed to contradict what I had just read. So I would like to first thank the person who removed the anatomy book; otherwise this would have been a completely different dissertation. The whole reason I was searching for the book on anatomy was to choose a new topic for my course paper for Lucia Dacome’s class on the history of medicine. Having spent five years studying philosophy before entering graduate school, I had tremendous difficulty retraining my thinking and learning how to write history. It took me a while to even understand what a historiography was. I want to thank Lucia for not only introducing me to a remarkable area of research, but for agreeing to supervise and guide me on a new path of scholarship. She patiently showed me how to address key intellectual issues I raise in this dissertation, scolded me when I fell in the traps of anachronism, and encouraged me to break out of my shyness and present my work at international conferences. The sense of marvel I initially felt in her course has created a deep and permanent love of history. I am a historian and a scholar only because of her continual encouragement and support. Janis Langins and Neita Israelite formed the other two-thirds of my supervisory committee. I am so grateful to them for their confidence and support in my project. Janis returned chapter vi drafts full of provoking questions, forcing me include more aspects of French medicine and strengthen my analysis. I also benefited from his corrections of my gender of French nouns. Neita’s energy and enthusiasm made our lively conversations over coffee all the more memorable. Not only did she clarify pivotal moments in deaf history for me, but she also outlined several avenues I could use to create a more interdisciplinary focus for my dissertation. I would also like to thank Lori Loeb and Chen-Pang Yeang, who served on my oral exam. Their insightful and thoughtful questions created a stimulating conversation and raised crucial points for me to address in future publications. Michael Brown served as my external examiner. I have long admired his work on medical culture and have the honour of being his first external Ph.D. examination. In his report, he highlighted key historiographical issues for me to address, providing invaluable comments and suggestions for reshaping my work into a monograph. I look forward to continuing our conversations down the line. Throughout this project, the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology at University of Toronto created an incredibly positive and collegial environment for me to work in. I’ve been lucky to grow and work alongside an astonishing group of scholars. Denise Horstley and Muna Salloum were more than administrative wonders: they were my cheerleaders. Marga Vicedo, Mark Solovey, and Paul Thompson offered advice for navigating the threshold of graduate school and frequently inquired about how my research was going. As my project heavily relied on archives in England, the department generously supported me through several travel grants. Lunchtime brownbag sessions provided me with opportunities to present my work in an informal setting; I am thankful for all of those who turned up for free sandwiches and/or pizza and took the time to think of thoughtful questions even when I didn’t make any sense. vii I am especially thankful to my fellow graduate students for our random conversations, though at time serving as a distraction, nevertheless helped me to tie together intellectual threads: Isaac Record, Ari Gross, Erich Weidenhammer, Aaron Wright, Cory Lewis, John Christopoulos, Paul Greenham, Chris Belanger, Kira Lussier, Anthony Kulic, Nico Saldias, and Jon Turner. Delia Gravus serves as an incredible inspiration as a writer and historian. She read key aspects of my work and cheered me on from afar. Charissa Varma delighted me with enlightening and entertaining chats. She also provided her hospitality during a visit to Cambridge and made sure I embraced the full glory of natural sciences with a tour through the Darwin Correspondence Project. Special thanks are owed to Mike Stuart, who sometimes took upon the dangerous task of untangling my web of thoughts. Our many conversations and paper exchanges helped to keep my head in order. Thank you for editing so much of my work and for believing in me—especially at times I found it impossible to continue forward. The CGS Doctoral Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada gave me the financial flexibility to take long winters off and write in isolation. Travel grants from the School of Graduate Studies at University of Toronto provided immense support during long research trips. Chapter drafts were presented at various conferences and workshops. I’m grateful to audiences at these meeting and to the following societies for financial support that enabled me to participate: the Canadian Historical Association (2009), Society for the History of Technology (2009), the local organizing committee for the International Congress in History of Science and Technology (2009), the Canadian Society for History and Philosophy of Science (2012), the History of Science Society (2012), and the Disability History Association (2012). I’m also thankful for the University of Toronto for a fellowship while I was doing my masters studies and to the National Science Foundation for a grant in 2009 for additional support for the ICHST meeting. viii The final stages of completing my draft were undertaken in residence at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin on a pre-doctoral fellowship. I am tremendously grateful to Sabine Arnaud for initially inviting me to present at the Deaf World/Hearing World workshop and then offering me the fellowship. Our research interests overlapped at certain intersections and her invaluable insight has strengthened my analytical framework for chapter five. Special thanks are to fellow members of my research group: Raluca Enescu who kept me company during our occasional office hours and Debolina Dey for being a wonderful, curious, and creative person I am glad to count as a friend—we spent many hours together locked in our office, sitting in the courtyard, or making excursions to the market to delight in the variety of German cuisine. Mara Mills also arrived to MPIWG during my last month. I thank her for her patience for the many occasions I dropped by her office unannounced to share a new research find or ask yet another question, and for her friendly counsel in improving my research on hearing aids. The MPIWG library staff deserves all my praise for their tireless efforts to ensure any book I ordered was effectively delivered to my desk as soon as possible.