Guest guest Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 I think the following quotations from Unschuld are relevant to this dicsussion. All the quotes are from 'Nature versus chemistry and technology'. - From this angle, I can state that there is no such thing as the Chinese medicine. - The continuing existence of the imperial establishment over a period of two thousand years up to the beginning of the 20th century maintained the external foundations of the view of the individual body, the causes and best possible methods of treatment of disease. Chinese medicine has by no means stagnated over these two thousand years, a point I will come back to in due course. Yet in its basic conception with regard to the individual organism, it remained essentially as unchanged as the organism of the state whose political health rested on the same principles. If we cast a glance at Europe, then we easily see one of the causes for the continual change and often a simultaneous variety of medical constructs. Hardly once since antiquity did a political constitution last for several centuries; with change in the political constitution, there ensued a fundamental change in the conception of our bodily constitution. The continual change in basic political structures European history over the last two thousand years has manifested in manifold changes in medical thought. Neither in Europe nor in China has man been able to interpret disease of his personal organism in a way different from than in which he interprets crises in the social organism. Neither in China nor in Europe has medicine ever stood outside the prevailing world view. Chinese medicine-and here we should place an important argument of its proponents in perspective-did not survive for two thousand years because its basic convictions were clinically so effective or correct, but rather because these basic convictions coincided with the convictions that underlay the society of the imperial age. Only when the world view of the imperial age came to a definitive end in 1911 did the fundamental plausibility of traditional Chinese medicine crumble and a new medicine that responded to the new age gain widespread acceptance. - A feature of the development of Chinese medicine in the two thousand years of the imperial age was the increasing number of differing doctrines concerning etiology, physiology, and therapy that existed simultaneously. On the basis of a few common fundamental ideas, Chinese doctors over the centuries developed numerous approaches for dealing with sickness. Unlike the situation in Europe, there was no tendency to develop a school of opinion that was based on at least a majority, if not, ideally, on the unanimous agreement of all those involved that persisted until it was replaced by a new school of thought. In the history of Chinese, progress from one commonly sustained paradigm to the next is not apparent... - If we wanted to adopt only those elements of Chinese medicine that could be proven scientifically, not much would be left. Yet we do not have any other criterion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 I'm no scholar, it's 7 in the morning but from this one quote, PU talks of the " continual change " of the political state but doesn't mention the religious continuity (Christianity) of perhaps 1500 years of political order. One could say that the religious/ideological frames and trumps the political. > > If we cast a glance at Europe, then we easily see one of the causes > for the continual change and often a simultaneous variety of medical > constructs. Hardly once since antiquity did a political constitution > last for several centuries; with change in the political constitution, > there ensued a fundamental change in the conception of our bodily > constitution. The continual change in basic political structures > European history over the last two thousand years has manifested in > manifold changes in medical thought. > - If we wanted to adopt only those elements of Chinese medicine that > could be proven scientifically, not much would be left. Yet we do not > have any other criterion. I agree yet this is odd. What do you mean " we " white man? Quite a statement for an anthropologist. doug , " wainwrightchurchill " <w.churchill_1-@t...> wrote: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 > - If we wanted to adopt only those elements of Chinese medicine that > could be proven scientifically, not much would be left. Yet we do not > have any other criterion. I agree yet this is odd. What do you mean " we " white man? Quite a statement for an anthropologist. doug>> Doug, Unschuld isn't recommending that CM be proven scientifically, in fact, he's arguing exactly the opposite, and warning us what will happen if we go down that route. His point is that, given that tools of understanding are cultural and relate to existing conditions in society, we can no longer determine the validity of CM as an active process(i.e. verify it) within the norms of our society (and this also applies to the PRC), at this time, except through subjecting it to scientific investigation, in which case, if we wish to 'adopt only those elements of Chinese medicine that could be proven scientifically, not much would be left.' In fact, he's encouraging us to refrain from subjecting CM to scientific investigation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 Aha, I see. My knee is still hurting from hitting my desk when I read the quotes. Ok, I see it over and over where Western medicine research is proving to be correct. A slight example is the recent statistical research that breast cancer happens more in women with stress. doug > > Unschuld isn't recommending that CM be proven scientifically, in fact, > he's arguing exactly the opposite, and warning us what will happen if > we go down that route. His point is that, given that tools of > understanding are cultural and relate to existing conditions in > society, we can no longer determine the validity of CM as an active > process(i.e. verify it) within the norms of our society (and this also > applies to the PRC), at this time, except through subjecting it to > scientific investigation, in which case, if we wish to 'adopt only > those elements of Chinese medicine that could be proven > scientifically, not much would be left.' In fact, he's encouraging us > to refrain from subjecting CM to scientific investigation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.