more on textbooks

[Guest guest]

Dear Doug,

 

I will try to keep this one briefer and address your

questions about textbooks directly. But first I should

say that I think your questions point to a larger

issue, which is the widespread story/myth that I have

heard many times here in the US that the Chinese

Communists have been responsible for the decline of

Chinese medicine, forcing modernization down the

throats of hapless doctors. I don’t know the origin of

these sorts of stories, so if you happen to have some

references, please, please pass them along. My own

view and the view of most historians of Chinese

medicine that I know is almost the opposite. In a many

ways, the Communists really deserve credit for saving

Chinese medicine, which during the Nationalist era

almost went the way of Kampo medicine in Japan.

 

But more important than assessing praise and blame is

to recognize that the predicament that Chinese

medicine doctors faced in the early and mid 20th

century went far beyond any party affiliation. The

consensus among just about everyone in the Chinese

medicine community by the 1930s on was that Chinese

medicine had to modernize or perish. The real debate

was one of degree. I would say this still holds true

today in China.

 

I think I came to my research with some of he same

prejudices that you did. In a certain sense, I wanted

to know who was responsible for trying to smuggle so

much biomedicine into the textbooks. I discovered that

ideological issues were certainly a factor in this

process. In his book, Volker describes one interesting

such influence, Engel’s theory of natural dialectics.

But I don’t think these ideological issues become an

overriding concern, at least not in a coercive way,

except perhaps during the Cultural Revolution, where

everyone had to push “integrated medicine.? But even

then, I think most participants were “believers,? if

you will, so it wasn’t a matter of arm-twisting among

them. I found that all the editors I interviewed were

deeply committed to producing the very best textbooks

that they could. Even when “integrated medicine

doctors? (Western medicine doctors trained in Chinese

medicine) did participate, they did so with the

noblest intentions. They believed deeply in Chinese

medicine and wanted to do everything they could to

advance it. I am told furthermore that their

contributions were very welcomed by the traditional

scholars. One of the difficulties of the time, as

surprising as it might sound, was that nobody knew

what a Chinese medicine textbook should look like. So

in trying to understand the problems of the textbooks,

I think we have to look not at any one individual or

group but rather at the mission, which was to produce

textbooks that would be both faithful to the heritage

of Chinese medicine and could also serve as the basis

of a new, modern educational system. I think it is the

contradictions inherent in that task ? to be true

their own native traditions while also meeting some

(perceived) standard of the West ? that lies at the

root of the problem. This contradiction is what I call

a “postcolonial predicament? and unfortunately there

are no simple answers to it. For all the problems of

the textbooks, I ultimately came to feel that the

struggle of these editors, especially with the early

editions (1st and 2nd editions), where quite heroic.

Of course, none of this analysis gets us much closer

to better textbooks, but maybe it will help us to

better understand where the problem lies.

 

Regards,

Eric Karchmer

 

--- wrote:

[Guest guest]

Eric, actually there is no need to be brief. CHA sometimes feels like an old

family at

christmas... we run out of things to say to each other. Your input is great.

 

I'm not sure I was saying that the Communists were forcing CM down as much as a

Western Medical institution in China. (The communist myth is another

discussion). I'm sure

that the doctors from both traditions tried to do it right. My question is if

there was a lack

of the depth to what was put in? You seem to suggest that it was more of what

was left to

put in. And how to present it in a coherent book form.

 

Can you explain, a little or alot, about why CM had to modernize back then to

survive? Was

that an issue of a lack of instituitional-financial support or the medicine had

been

diminished or grown in-effective?

 

doug

 

 

, Eric Karchmer <eikarchmer wrote:

>

> Dear Doug,

>

> I will try to keep this one briefer and address your

> questions about textbooks directly. But first I should

> say that I think your questions point to a larger

> issue, which is the widespread story/myth that I have

> heard many times here in the US that the Chinese

> Communists have been responsible for the decline of

> Chinese medicine, forcing modernization down the

> throats of hapless doctors. I don't know the origin of

> these sorts of stories, so if you happen to have some

> references, please, please pass them along. My own

> view and the view of most historians of Chinese

> medicine that I know is almost the opposite. In a many

> ways, the Communists really deserve credit for saving

> Chinese medicine, which during the Nationalist era

> almost went the way of Kampo medicine in Japan.

>

> But more important than assessing praise and blame is

> to recognize that the predicament that Chinese

> medicine doctors faced in the early and mid 20th

> century went far beyond any party affiliation. The

> consensus among just about everyone in the Chinese

> medicine community by the 1930s on was that Chinese

> medicine had to modernize or perish. The real debate

> was one of degree. I would say this still holds true

> today in China.

>

> I think I came to my research with some of he same

> prejudices that you did. In a certain sense, I wanted

> to know who was responsible for trying to smuggle so

> much biomedicine into the textbooks. I discovered that

> ideological issues were certainly a factor in this

> process. In his book, Volker describes one interesting

> such influence, Engel's theory of natural dialectics.

> But I don't think these ideological issues become an

> overriding concern, at least not in a coercive way,

> except perhaps during the Cultural Revolution, where

> everyone had to push " integrated medicine.? But even

> then, I think most participants were " believers,? if

> you will, so it wasn't a matter of arm-twisting among

> them. I found that all the editors I interviewed were

> deeply committed to producing the very best textbooks

> that they could. Even when " integrated medicine

> doctors? (Western medicine doctors trained in Chinese

> medicine) did participate, they did so with the

> noblest intentions. They believed deeply in Chinese

> medicine and wanted to do everything they could to

> advance it. I am told furthermore that their

> contributions were very welcomed by the traditional

> scholars. One of the difficulties of the time, as

> surprising as it might sound, was that nobody knew

> what a Chinese medicine textbook should look like. So

> in trying to understand the problems of the textbooks,

> I think we have to look not at any one individual or

> group but rather at the mission, which was to produce

> textbooks that would be both faithful to the heritage

> of Chinese medicine and could also serve as the basis

> of a new, modern educational system. I think it is the

> contradictions inherent in that task ? to be true

> their own native traditions while also meeting some

> (perceived) standard of the West ? that lies at the

> root of the problem. This contradiction is what I call

> a " postcolonial predicament? and unfortunately there

> are no simple answers to it. For all the problems of

> the textbooks, I ultimately came to feel that the

> struggle of these editors, especially with the early

> editions (1st and 2nd editions), where quite heroic.

> Of course, none of this analysis gets us much closer

> to better textbooks, but maybe it will help us to

> better understand where the problem lies.

>

> Regards,

> Eric Karchmer

>

> --- wrote:

>