Towards a critical cultural epidemiology (original) (raw)
Related papers
Can There Be a "Cultural Epidemiology"?
Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 1999
[cancer, culture, epidemiology, epistemology, research methods] E ven a brief excursion through the history of 19th-century social medicine (Trostle 1986b) and 20th-century studies of the health consequences of social and cultural change (Trostle 1986a) suggests two things: (1) that biological and anthropological paradigms are not inherently incompatible; and (2) that epidemiology and anthropology are natural allies in the study of disease in human populations (see Dunn and Janes 1986). But ten years ago, the possibilities of such an alliance remained less than fully realized, and, in fact, Trostle himself characterized the relationship as one of "benign neglect" (1986a:80) and a series of "missed opportunities" (1986a:79).
1987
Collaboration between anthropology and epidemiology has a long and tumultuous history. Based on empirical examples, this paper describes a number of epistemological lessons we have learned through our experience of cross-disciplinary collaboration. Although critical of both mainstream epidemiology and medical anthropology, our analysis focuses on the implications of addressing each discipline's main epistemological differences, while addressing the goal of adopting a broader social approach to health improvement. We believe it is important to push the boundaries of research collaborations from the more standard forms of "multidisciplinarity," to the adoption of theoretically imbued "interdisciplinarity." The more we challenge epistemological limitations and modify ways of knowing, the more we will be able to provide in-depth explanations for the emergence of disease-patterns and thus, to problem-solve. In our experience, both institutional support and the adoption of a relativistic attitude are necessary conditions for sustained theoretical interdisciplinarity. Until researchers acknowledge that methodology is merely a human-designed tool to interpret reality, unnecessary methodological hyper-specialization will continue to alienate one field of knowledge from the other.
Book Review. Culture and Epidemiology
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 2007
James Trostle's book ''Epidemiology and Culture''offers a number of valuable intended and unintended contributions. The main purpose of Trostle's book is to argue for the benefits of greater collaboration between epidemiology and anthropology in the pursuit of improving human health. He locates the most amenable point to bridge the two disciplines in the overlap of social epidemiology and cultural/medical anthropology. According to Trostle, social epidemiology is the branch of epidemiology most directly concerned with the health ...
American Anthropologist, 1999
Thiemping in northern Senegal (Magistro). One can't help wondering what these communities were doing before when certain machine technologies were not available, or certain geopolitical limits were not yet in place. The "Ecology of Practice" approach goes beyond the theoretical gains of historical materialism and current anxieties about "subjectivity" by directly relating analysis in a chronological discussion that necessarily draws on outward as well as internal linkages whether they be economic, socio-cultural or purely political. If there is a danger there, it may be the temptation to become overly deterministic in following material causes for human's decision making, thus reducing the scope of the analysis and returning to what is essentially a transactional interpretation. The other danger in this attractive theoretical frontier is the danger to succumb to the mystification of one's own writing or mystification of the reader through over use of agronomic terms and concepts. In fact, this is a challenge to the approach that is significant. It implies that anthropologists take to heart the great need for their participation in examining problems of ecology without duplicating or rediscovering principles and assumptions that are the grist of the agronomist's mill. This is far more difficult than one would initially expect. It remains a just challenge in that agronomists or other scientists in related fields (hydraulic specialists, plant breeders, horticulturalists) depend on the social sciences to facilitate their entry past the farm gate; and to understand what happens after harvest. It is important therefore, that anthropologists concerned with ecology work closely with those of relevant sciences, take advantage of their literature, and, doing what we do best; understand their culture. An example might be that the fact that a small farm produces less volume; that it requires less labor is not a discovery in the world of the agronomist. What the agronomist depends on us to discover is the how and why of human behavior in that set of parameters. This does not take us away from the Ecology of Practice but rather requires us to look more profoundly at the paradigm and work harder at its application. A "sociocentric approach to ecology" should bring us to better understandings of how "individual agency (practice, politics) links the exploitation of resources to technologies that are created and used for the realization of culturally important projects" (p. 2), as Nyerges points out in the introduction. This volume is in fact a valuable contribution to the important project of better analysis of humankind's relationship to nature and the problem of culture.
[Book/Introduction chapter] Pandemics and Epidemics in Cultural Representation
Springer, 2022
Pandemics and epidemics have always shaped our history. Throughout recorded human history, periodic outbreaks of catastrophic pandemics and epidemics have threatened human existence on this planet and have been a regular reminder of our mortality and vulnerability in the face of nature’s calamities, including deadly diseases. These episodes have often shown the limitations of human knowledge, particularly advancements in science to fortify against the violence of new and often deadly pathogens. At the same time, pandemics and epidemics have also been formative moments of human history, ushering in momentous transformations in the ways in which we live and relate to each other. They have provided opportunities to gain new insights into the human body and how it functions, as well as reflect on the ways in which societies and communities form and interact.
The Relationship between Epidemiology and Anthropology
Anthropologists and epidemiologists have been working for decades in the public health sector, but the relationship between these two 'communities' has not always been very good. Epidemiologists concentrate on quantitative data which is collated by structured interviews. In contrast, anthropologists depend on participant observation and produce qualitative data. For the dominant position in the public health sector, epidemiologists often ignore the qualitative data in their analysis. This qualitative data which relates to the behaviour of certain kinds of 'disease' gives a better and more authentic picture about a particular aspect of that disease. The reason for overlooking these ethnographic findings is because it is problematic to link up this behavioural data with 'risk factors' or with 'variables' in epidemiological statistical analysis. But apart from the 'germ theory' or 'risk factors' there are so many social and cultural factors in different contexts that can influence disease development and prognosis, which are also very important to consider in designing and implementing an effective intervention programme. Anthropologists can make a big contribution to finding out those factors.