In “Medical Mimesis: Healing Signs of a Cosmopolitan ‘Quack’,” Jean Langford depicts the medical practices of an Ayurvedic doctor in an Indian metropolis. Dr. Mistry, a specialist in reading pulse, helps patients with their health problems by only examining their pulses on their first visits and not on any other visits. I think it is interesting how Dr. Mistry “nearly always makes some promise regarding the cure” just not absolute cure. This signifies how he is confident of his practice and his relationship between him and his patients. It’s also interesting how he hands out photocopied articles about himself to his patients. According to this article, Dr. Mistry publicity is by word of mouth. One of Dr. Mistry’s partners said, “Advertising wouldn’t be the proper meaning,” because Ayurvedic doctors must have “faith” in Ayurveda (37). He avoids advertising because “[his] ambivalence about magic and equivocation about advertising are linked to one another in that each derives meaning from his emphasis on faith as crucial to cure” (39). Meaning, Dr. Mistry is aware of the basic principles which come from meditation. He tries to not be distracted by others because it would be like impressing them and making his work become like a gimmick. This signifies that he tries to avoid quack-like practices because his practices would be exploited as “magical”.
“The Sacred in the Scientific: Ambiguous Practices of Science in Tibetan Medicine,” by Vincanne Adams explores particular meanings that associate with the idea of and the term science in relation to traditional Tibetan medicine in the contemporary Tibetan autonomous Region of China (543). I think it is interesting how Tibetan medical practices are labeled as “secretive” because of the sacredness and value of their knowledge. In Western society we may label this as something superstitious because there is no scientific evidence to prove the positive outcome of their treatment. The challenge of finding similarities between biomedicine and tradition Tibetan medicine is labeling certain things as religious or scientific. I think there is a structural barrier that inflicts being rationale with the terms we use to signify certain meaning.
What’s interesting about these articles is how each author explores labeling practices as science or religion. For example, is there valid proof to label Dr. Mistry's practices as "magical"? Or are Tibetan practices not scientific enough? It is difficult to label certain things as science or religion because there is an overlap of dominant practices. Thus, there is a clash of power and representation about definitive truth and knowledge. There are many factors that challenge determining the authenticity of medical practices because of cultural differences.
In addition to, these articles emphasize hidden understandings of how these practices play in treating patients. For example, Tibetan medical practices uphold very sacred value which only certain people can obtain that knowledge. As for Dr. Mistry, he was very hesitant in his interview with Langford because he doesn’t want to put too much faith into labeling his practice as “magic”. Otherwise, it would be considered as dangerous to impressing others as a means of achieving efficacy because it would seem like a gimmick. According to Langford's article, she quotes Lévi-Strauss who wrote about a Brazilian sorcerer which equally applies to Dr. Mistry: "Quesalid did not become a great shaman because he cured his patients; he cured his patients because he had become a great shaman" (Langford 40). This means that "if for one instant he (Dr. Mistry) loses his meditative focus, then his ability to read pulse might dissolve into gimmickry" (Langford 40). There is a cautionary tale of revealing the truth of how these treatments have become very effective in these cultures. For one thing, sacred knowledge has value which demonstrates why all the secrecy to spreading that knowledge elsewhere.
The cartoon above relates to the dilemma of answering the effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Does the scientific method have more evidence to prove the truth about health issues? Or is it religion? On the left side of the cartoon, it demonstrates how the scientific method has actual facts, but no conclusions to interpret these meanings. On the right side, the creationist method can only draw from conclusions written in the bible, but have no actual facts to prove these meanings. Interestingly, both methods have something that the other needs. This brings up a Cartesian dualism relationship because both cultures represent evidence that contribute to our knowledge and understanding about health issues. This Cartesian dualism is better represented with the ancient Chinese yin/yang cosmology about maintaining harmony or holism. For instance, “the health of individuals depends on a balance in the natural world...Nothing can change without changing the world” (Lock and Scheper-Hughes 12).
Overall, the challenge in health issues is labeling what is science or religion because they have very different meanings in other culture other than the western medicine approach. Because there are a range of disciplines ideology plays a major role in shaping culture. Therefore, it is hard to label a definitive term in another culture.
References:
Adams, Vincanne. 2001. “The Sacred in the Scientific: Ambiguous Practices of Science in Tibetan Medicine.” Cultural Anthropology. 16 (4): 542-575.
Jean M. Langford, 1999. "Medical Mimesis: Healing Signs of a Cosmopolitan 'Quack'." American Ethnologist 26(1):24-46
Nancy-Scheper-Hughes and Margaret M. Lock, 1987, "The Mindful Body: A Prolegonmenon to Future Work in Medical Anthropology." Medical Anthropology Quarterly 1(1) March: 6-41.
References:
Adams, Vincanne. 2001. “The Sacred in the Scientific: Ambiguous Practices of Science in Tibetan Medicine.” Cultural Anthropology. 16 (4): 542-575.
Jean M. Langford, 1999. "Medical Mimesis: Healing Signs of a Cosmopolitan 'Quack'." American Ethnologist 26(1):24-46
Nancy-Scheper-Hughes and Margaret M. Lock, 1987, "The Mindful Body: A Prolegonmenon to Future Work in Medical Anthropology." Medical Anthropology Quarterly 1(1) March: 6-41.
