Читать книгу A Companion to Medical Anthropology онлайн

33 страница из 242

To counter accusations of over-specialization, a statement issued by the SMA in 1981 defining medical anthropology asserted unambiguously: “Medical anthropology is not a discipline separate from anthropology” (Society for Medical Anthropology 1981, p. 8). This did not offset objections related to the narrow technical definition of the term “medical,” noted, for instance, at the GMA’s 1968 organizational meeting. Not only did “medical” leave out nurses and members of the allied health professions; it suggested (and still does) a biomedical gold standard. Other concerns have been the implied focus on pathology and the implicit devaluation of interpretive ethnographic methods.

Nursing theorist Madeline Leininger suggested instead “health anthropology” – which an increasing number prefer today as well (e.g., Baer et al. 2016), perhaps most commonly in Europe, where the preference has deep roots (Hsu 2012). The appellation is perhaps least commonly heard in the Global South, where medical utility often is emphasized (Mishra 2007). At the 1968 meeting, however, although the proposal to rebrand instigated “lively discussion” it did not triumph (Weidman 1986, p. 119).