NORMAL MEDICINE

Our society today has shaped us in belief of the definition of normality. Professor discussed in lecture that “normal” is defined by measurements of a group of “healthy” beings and that anyone outside of that boundary is the outcast. With so many different variations of cultures around the world there is no possible way of creating an image of a normal person, so why is the social and medical construction of normal deeply engraved in health? As I started to read, Culture Behavior and Health by Scrimshaw, I started to connect how the idea of classifying someone as a normal person creates a bias for what we believe as what is normal medicine. And because cultures are different there aren’t standard medicine procedures that would essentially work for all, especially with aspects of culture constantly changing. Scrimshaw states, “Culture has developed its own ways of solving the problems of how to live together.” Limiting global health to the perception of a “normal” person undermines the influence culture has on health and further marginalizes others.

In lecture we learned about how our perceptions of normality that we subconsciously developed from our culture aren’t indeed accurate because normal does not exist. For example, Professor had asked what the difference between, “Westerners” not believing in sorcery and someone from a different region not believing in genes. It’s “normal” for us to believe in genes because it is normalized in our culture’s health system and for others to believe in sorcery because it is normalized in their cultural beliefs. With two different culture views that impact/influence the way they practice medicine, it is impossible to classify one as normal. However, in our modernized society we have ranked Western Biomedicine as the “normal” method. Enforcing this belief proposes a major challenge to Global Health. Not understanding the difference between one cultures way of healing versus another enables us from not only communication but working together to help prevent diseases/illnesses.

Our society produces our ethnocentric view of health. Growing up in the U.S, I was always taught that Western Biomedicine is the best form of medicine. Other cultures different forms of medicines are rarely discussed. In the video during lecture, we watched the journey of an anthropologist traveling to India to understand their methods of healing. Initially when he explained to U.S doctors that his shoulder isn’t flexible they suggested using surgery to insert a metal joint.  The doctor notified him that this procedure causes severe health side effects. When he explained to the doctors in India about his arm stiffness they gave him body rubs with various substances. After a while, he noticed that his shoulder was starting to loosen up. Cultures have different approaches of healing and also different definitions of diagnosing an illness.

The idea of using one cultures method of medicine onto other’s connecting me to the article from the Huffington Post, Traditional Chinese Medicine Focuses More On Healing Body Than Curing Disease: Analysis. The article explains how in Chinese culture the mind and body are categorized as one. They focus on healing the person rather than healing the disease. In Western Biomedicine doctors focus on the biological disease rather than healing the mind body and soul of a person. Similar to the Indian culture they use massages/ bodily rubs and also acupuncture. In their culture this method of healing is proven to be very powerful. This proves that although our culture does not focus on healing the mind of the person doesn’t make the Chinese method of healing not normal.  Pushing for an image of a “normal” person with the constant evolving of cultures around the world, in my opinion dehumanizes left winged practices.

In the article, Culture Behavior and Health by Scrimshaw she mentions the dangers of using your medical beliefs to criticize other cultures treatment processes. In one instance where epidemiologist encouraged Bolivian peasants to stop putting clay in their drinks because they believed it was “wrong” ended up making the Bolivians sick. Instead of understanding that the Bolivians were drinking the fine clay because of its rich source of calcium and for digestion, they used their dominate Western Biomedical perspective. What prompted epidemiologist to instruct the Bolivians to stop? The social and medical construction of normal in their culture out ruled their decision. What is normalized in one culture does not mean it is meant to be normalized in another. Therefore, creating an image of a “normal” person/ medicine prompts serious health risks. As Scrimshaw also states, “to understand the cultural context of health..the concepts of insider outsider perspectives are useful”. She describes the situation of Guatemalan mothers who believed worms in children weren’t a serious threat. The mothers believed that the worms would only get aroused during the rainy season because the thunder frightened them. Using the anthropological approach, they convinced the mothers to de-worm the children only before the upcoming rainy season and the mothers agreed to do. I agree with Scrimshaw, had medical anthropologist told them that their theory was incorrect they would have become reluctant to de-worming the children. Because the anthropologist understood that in their culture it is “normal” for them to believe that and instead of trying to force their beliefs on the Guatemalan mothers they compromised. This shows that if Global health officials work more on trying to use a more medical anthropological perspective, instead of what is normalized the Western culture, it will be a lot easier working with people around the globe to combat health issues.  

 

I chose this particular illustration because it shows the split difference for what is considered western medicine vs. eastern medicine, two different cultures. Looking at this picture you may just see technology on one side and natural herbs on the other however; coming from the culture you’ve grown up with you can’t help but to pick a side. Personally for me because all I’ve ever learned is the biomedical approach I naturally identify that as “normal” medicine because of the image we have socially and medically constructed of normal. That is why it is extremely important for medical anthropologist to broaden the theory of “normal” medicine by gaining insight on various cultures. When we truly have a better insight of the different approaches to health, it will be a lot easier for global health officials to tackle health problems.

Denden Embaye