首页> 外文期刊>Social science and medicine >Systems of medicine and nationalist discourse in India: towards 'new horizons' in medical anthropology and history.
【24h】

Systems of medicine and nationalist discourse in India: towards 'new horizons' in medical anthropology and history.

机译:印度的医学和民族主义话语体系:迈向医学人类学和历史学的“新视野”。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

While accepting medical "pluralism" as a historical reality, as an intrinsic value inherent in any medical system, and as an ideal or desired goal that any multicultural society ought to achieve, this paper argues the need to go beyond the liberal pluralist tendencies that have dominated the debate so far. It holds that while documenting or dealing with the "co-existence" of varied medical traditions and practices, we must not ignore or underplay issues of power, domination and hegemony and must locate our work in a larger historical, social and political context. With this perspective, and based essentially on Assembly proceedings, private papers, official documents and archival materials from the first half of the 20th-century, this paper identifies three major streams in the nationalist discourse in India: conformity, defiance and the quest for an alternative. It shows that while the elements of conformity to biomedicine and its dominance remained more pronounced and emphatic, those of defiance were conversely weak and at times even apologetic. The quest for alternatives, on the other hand, although powerful and able to build trenchant civilizational and institutional critique of modern science and medicine, could never find adequate space in the national agenda for social change. The paper further holds that although the "cultural authority" and hegemony of biomedicine over indigenous science and knowledge were initiated by the colonial state, they were extended by the mainstream national leaderships and national governments with far more extensive and profound implications and less resistance. In light of the growing global networking of "traditional", "complementary" and "alternative" health systems on the one hand and the hegemonic and homogenizing role and presence of multilateral organizations (such as the World Bank and IMF) in shaping national health policies on the other, such insights from history become extraordinarily important.
机译:本文在接受医学“多元主义”作为历史现实,作为任何医学体系固有的内在价值以及作为任何多元文化社会应实现的理想或理想目标的同时,认为需要超越具有以下特征的自由多元主义倾向:到目前为止,主导了辩论。它认为,在记录或处理各种医学传统和实践的“共存”时,我们决不能忽视或忽视权力,统治和霸权问题,而必须将我们的工作定位在更大的历史,社会和政治背景下。从这个角度出发,本文主要基于20世纪上半叶的议会程序,私人文件,正式文件和档案材料,确定了印度民族主义话语中的三大主流:顺从,反抗和寻求民族主义。替代。它表明,虽然对生物医学的依从性及其主导地位仍然更加明显和强调,但反抗的则相对较弱,有时甚至道歉。另一方面,对替代品的追求虽然强大并且能够对现代科学和医学进行尖锐的文明和制度性批判,但在国家社会变革议程中永远找不到足够的空间。该论文进一步认为,尽管对生物科学的“文化权威”和对土著科学和知识的霸权是由殖民国家发起的,但它们却被主流的国家领导人和国家政府所扩大,其影响范围更广,影响更深,阻力更小。一方面,鉴于“传统”,“补充”和“替代”卫生系统的全球网络日益扩大,以及多边组织(例如世界银行和IMF)在制定国家卫生政策方面的霸权和同质化作用和存在另一方面,这种来自历史的见解变得异常重要。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号