I think you’ve hit upon what medical anthropology needs to sort out as a discipline. To be specific: What constitutes a moral position versus a phenomenological observation about a cultural phenomenon that assigns meaning to biology and anatomy? It is quite an interesting problem you have highlighted. This does not, in my opinion, question medical anthropology as a valid scientific field of study. It’s something to think about, research, and talk about to improve the field, which is a fascinating field, indeed, and totally worthwhile.
I see the same kind of flawed thinking in modern health advice.
Doctors: Eating too much is putting you at statistical risk for conditions X, Y, and Z.
Patients: It’s normal to want to eat!
Doctors: We didn’t say it wasn’t normal, we said it will hurt many of you.
Patients: Having X, Y, or Z doesn’t make us bad people!
Doctors: We didn’t say you’re bad, we said eating too much is bad.
Patients: You shouldn’t use normative good/bad judgements to describe health risks!
Doctors: We didn’t do that, now lose some weight you dinks or yer gonna die!
… etc. ad infinitum.
Or, take the dialog around sexual assault, or abortion, or… almost any human activity. The human tendency to take objective fact (as much as anything can be considered objective) and convert it to subjective value judgements underlies, and undermines, everything.
Yes, this is classic anthropological theorizing, in fact. Claude Levi-Strauss touched upon these issues, and they continue to be interesting questions to think about. He didn’t frame it in the medical field, but it’s the same question that plagues sociological and anthropological research. Your elaboration actually highlights something very important: the straight-up medical field could learn from medical anthropology and seems to pay little attention to it. The two fields have so much to talk about together and collaborate. It happens sometimes, but not often enough.
I think you’ve hit upon what medical anthropology needs to sort out as a discipline. To be specific: What constitutes a moral position versus a phenomenological observation about a cultural phenomenon that assigns meaning to biology and anatomy? It is quite an interesting problem you have highlighted. This does not, in my opinion, question medical anthropology as a valid scientific field of study. It’s something to think about, research, and talk about to improve the field, which is a fascinating field, indeed, and totally worthwhile.
I see the same kind of flawed thinking in modern health advice.
Doctors: Eating too much is putting you at statistical risk for conditions X, Y, and Z.
Patients: It’s normal to want to eat!
Doctors: We didn’t say it wasn’t normal, we said it will hurt many of you.
Patients: Having X, Y, or Z doesn’t make us bad people!
Doctors: We didn’t say you’re bad, we said eating too much is bad.
Patients: You shouldn’t use normative good/bad judgements to describe health risks!
Doctors: We didn’t do that, now lose some weight you dinks or yer gonna die!
… etc. ad infinitum.
Or, take the dialog around sexual assault, or abortion, or… almost any human activity. The human tendency to take objective fact (as much as anything can be considered objective) and convert it to subjective value judgements underlies, and undermines, everything.
Yes, this is classic anthropological theorizing, in fact. Claude Levi-Strauss touched upon these issues, and they continue to be interesting questions to think about. He didn’t frame it in the medical field, but it’s the same question that plagues sociological and anthropological research. Your elaboration actually highlights something very important: the straight-up medical field could learn from medical anthropology and seems to pay little attention to it. The two fields have so much to talk about together and collaborate. It happens sometimes, but not often enough.