Medical pluralism is, by my interpretation of the readings,
a fairly broad concept involving agency, incorporation, and cross-fertilization
of medical discourses and practices. Lacking in a theoretical background and
with only two readings, I am having difficulty drawing significant conclusions and
connections this week.
To what degree have we seen medical pluralism in other
readings this term? In Kelm’s two pieces that we have studied this term, medical
pluralism is central. Medical pluralism is hinted at, though not as explicitly
discussed or named or named as such, in a few of the readings. For example, Keith
Carlson, touching on pluralism more generally, indicates that “Native ideas,
like Native history, could change to account for new information and new
historical experiences without ceasing to be Aboriginal in nature”[1]
and cites John Lutz, who described a “moditional” response to change, which
used modern activities for traditional purposes.[2]
Suzanne Alchon briefly describes how indigenous peoples of the Americas
acknowledged their own religions and those of the colonizers in their religious
responses to new diseases.[3]
From my admittedly cursory search through my notes for such themes in the
readings from previous weeks, it appears that medical pluralism is a silent
undercurrent through much of the relevant historiography, with few scholars
giving it voice.
No comments:
Post a Comment