In
modern society, a lot of people do not believe in ghosts, but still are afraid
of ghosts. Why would people would be afraid of things which they don’t even believe
in? Why are there are still many people who believe in rituals? This is a
problem worthy of study in the anthropology of religion. In “Exorcising the Trouble Makers: Magic,
Science, and Culture”, the very human need for religion and magic as
supplements to scientific and technological knowledge is the subject of this work.
In 1942, author Francis. K. Hsu witnessed a cholera
epidemic in a small rural settlement in Yunnan province, China. He found that
contrary to anthropological expectations, the Chinese responded to the crisis
with a combination of conciliatory rituals and practical hygienic measures.
More than thirty years later, he witnessed the elaborate ritualistic
preparations for another epidemic in the Shatin sub-division
of Hong Kong and found the supernatural and empirical response to be virtually
the same as in 1942. The small town XiYue, a settlement of YunNan, is an area
with little outside influence. They had limited education, technology and a harsh
environment. That people there have a
lot of ghost-related beliefs and ceremony is understandable. In contrast
Hongkong in the 1970s is a modern place with a large population, influence from
the outside world, and highly educated. It is an area brimming with technology,
communications and media. But the concept of ghosts is still popular there. The
prevalence of rituals there again seems to be justified.
According
to mainstream society, the view in general tends to be that magic and religion
is a superstition, just there to fill in the gaps left by science. It is taboo to use magic and region in modern
biomedicine dominated systems. In contrast, Francis Hsu doesn’t think that way.
He does a nice job in his book by using multiple data collection methods and
research techniques to explore this cultural phenomenon.
Data
and analytics seem boring, but good ethnography does not exist in isolation
from data. By using case study, Hsu brings it to life. This study took an
in-depth look at different groups: educated people, non-educated, the minority of
wealthy families, as well as highly populated middle class. Among the ethnographic record, he not only takes field notes and photographs, also makes maps to show the
common patterns of people's behavior: It doesn't matter if the person accepts
western medicine or not, he or she will still participate in rituals. Through his
daily participation and observation, random interviews, and
surveys, these data show all observed behavior and describe all symbol-meaning relations. But, still, it is not the data collection techniques or what has been collected to determine whether the study is ethnography. Rather, it is by the lens through which the data are interpreted. The way how he structures all of this makes
a substantial contribution toward the understanding of ritual as a reflection
of the human need for spirituality. They create an aesthetic impact on the
readers and express a credible reality. In order to avoid any personal casual
explanations, he uses data to represent the point of view of the subjects that
biomedicine is helpful but ritual is necessary to them as well. Through his qualitative and quantitative study,
these data not only captures the social meanings and ordinary activities of
people in naturally occurring settings like working in the fields, but also give
a more personal and in-depth portrait of the informants and the community.
Yet,
it’s unrealistic in ethnography to use work done on a small group and apply the
findings to larger population. People may argue that both XiYue and HongKong have same culture background, and they are all Chinese. Nevertheless, Hsu finds common threads through
his longitudinal analysis of similar phenomenon in the South Seas, East Africa,
Indian and white America. He uses numbers from secondary research and documents
around the world to illustrate his point and provide insight into this research
topic. By comparison and contrast, the author argues again, in spite of
technological and intellectual sophistication, the human psychic need for magic
and religion persists. He explains that rituals are not contradictory with
science; rather, they are supplements to scientific and technological knowledge.
Good
research is not just about methods. Cultural context is the essential key
concept and principle of medical anthropology.
Good ethnography does not exist in isolation from it. Susan Scrimshaw
says “Health and illness are defined, labeled, and evaluated, and acted on in
the context of culture”. People define ethnography as “a means to… represent in
writing, the culture of a people” (Wikipedia). France
Hsu gives us the insight to look beyond the obvious. The power of his work is
rooted in its ability to get past stereotypes, assumptions, and veneers to the
complex inner workings.
For
a long period of time, Western anthropologists understood superstition,
religion and science through the theoretical framework of social Darwinism (France
Hus); representatives such as Malinowski and others made a series of
expositions. Their view is that the difference
between magic and religion is that superstition uses utilitarianism as its basis,
and certain actions to achieve a specific purpose. It’s part of a culture’s
original characteristics. Similarity religion and science are also different; with
religion forming a culture’s organized beliefs and fixed values, while science
is devoted to the rational and empirical. According to Malinowski and others, magic,
religion, and science respectively represent three different forms of societies:
primitive
society, a civilized society and modern society. Hsu disagrees with this
statement. He uses his field notes and analysis show that people’s response to
the plague both in the town of West Yunnan in the 1940s or thirty years later in
Hong Kong, is the combination of magic, religion and science. Facing an
infectious disease, amulets for the expulsion of plague and a soul salvation
ceremony came together spontaneously; at the same time, the representations of the
scientific and rational drug treatments and quarantine measures are implemented
without obstacle. “Every human society has its own shape, its own purposes, its
own meanings... [The growth of society] is an active debate and amendment under
the pressures of experience, contact, and discovery ... “(Raymond Williams) Hsu
argues that there is no actual difference between primitive society, a civilized
society and modern society. Rather, people from different places deal with
things differently are because they have different experiences and different
cultural contexts. Rituals can be viewed
as designed to satisfy the spirit, and exist without detriment to science.
Yes,
“People around the world have beliefs and behaviors related to health and
illness that stem from cultural forces and individual experiences and
perception”. (Susan Scrimshaw) The
theory of ethnography is essentially a cultural context. In the long history of
mankind, disease and health as a universal life experience have gone hand in
hand. In different cultural backgrounds, people have different interpretations
of the causes of disease. And the perceptions of an individual or group can be
shaped by information, practicalities of everyday life, and previous
experiences. “You cannot just treat diseases, you have to treat bodies, and you
cannot just treat bodies unless you understand the lives bodies have become
accustomed to living.”(Nitcher) Across cultures, perceptions of health,
healthcare, and treatment are very different. Treating people today and
tomorrow may become more difficult as climate change, rapid transportation and
cross-cultural marriages. All of these can create new challenges for the
medical community. It is interesting to
see how “cultural context” leads readers to different interpretations. This also reminds me the term “cultural
relativism”. Cultural relativism plays
an important role in why people act so differently. It provides easy ways to
understand why different cultural backgrounds have derived different disease awareness
and different etiology interpretation.
Because
of the history of Western colonial expansion, missionary efforts, transnational
migration, and capital flows, Western medicine treatment methods and ideas have
spread around the world. It has become the dominant worldwide health care
system. But through the lens of cultural relativism in anthropology, Western
medicine itself is a very broad and very vague concept. It actually includes
Western faith healing, witchcraft, allopathy, homeopathy, and so on. Contemporary
molecular biomedical is just one type of Western medicine. So, instead of
"Western" medicine, biomedicine is more appropriate. Hsu, from a point of deep reflection disagrees
with the separation of magic, religion and science. He holds "cultural
relativism" reminds us that it’s erroneous to regard Western biomedicine
as the correct system. This historical error amounts to a kind of “ethnocentrism”
and does little more than pose a barrier, as other cultures are sometimes
skeptical of biomedicine. It’s easy to understand why magic, religion and
science are sometimes in conflict with each other.
“Cultural relativism” in anthropology refers
to the idea that each culture has developed its own ways of solving the
problem.” Examples of this are how we live together, how we obtain the
essentials of life, and how we explain phenomena. No one way should be viewed a
better or worse; they are just different. The basic argument is that the
cultures of different ethnic groups are equal. Every culture has its own
cultural logic and cultural significance. Every cultural system is historically
formed with its own originality characteristics. Therefore, Hsu suggests one must
abandon the concept of science or biomedicine as the center, and learn from the
point of view of "cultural relativism" to understand medical culture.
In the same way that different cultures cannot be viewed as best, better, or
worse, medical knowledge systems should likewise not be categorized the same
way. This kind of cultural supremacy is
counterproductive and prejudicial. Therefore, we must particularly stress the
necessity of diverse medical and cultural systems, and allow a variety of
medical and cultural knowledge systems to coexist. Only then can we expect the mutual understanding
and mutual respect required for successful treatment.
Hsu
is not satisfied with the practice of Western anthropologists completely
separating magic and religion. He
believes that the way Fraser, Durkheim and Malinowski pigeonhole magic,
religion and science into disparate categories does not withstand the test of
field facts, or common phenomena around the world. His conclusion has important
significance: culturally competent medicine should not focus strictly on one
side of the equation. The phenomenon of
magic, religion and science being used at the same time is not because different
cultures lack rational thought, but because people's behaviors are largely
influenced by their social organization and beliefs in their cultural systems.
The way people think and the pattern of their behavior are established on the
basis of their traditional concepts and beliefs. As anthropologists or ethnographers, the
meaning in the context of people’s daily life, and connections between personal
experiences is critical. As it turned out, Francis Hsu’s book made for
excellent reading on my trip, and did indeed contribute to my understanding of
medical anthropology and the
work of ethnography. Seeking to understand the relationship between culture and
behavior is the main goal. But more valuable still, the writing of the book brings the
topic to light. It fosters many other people like me to have a better understand of ethnography. Cross culturally, there should be no distinct line that separates Magic,
religion and science into separate boxes; rather, it’s significant to recognize
the importance of diagnosing people, their needs, hungers, and excesses, not
just diseases.
Bibliography
1:
Frances Hsu. “Exorcising the Trouble Makers: Magic, Science, and Culture”.
Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut. London, England, 1983.
The
very human need for religion and magic as supplements to scientific and
technological knowledge is the subject of this work. The phenomenon of magic,
religious and science being used at the same time is not because they lack
rational, but because of the people's behavior are largely influenced by their
social organization and their formation of beliefs in the kind of cultural
patterns. The ways of how people think and pattern of how people behavior are
established on the basis of their traditional concepts.
2:
Nichter, Mark. Global Health: Why
Cultural Perceptions, Social Representations, and Biopolitics Matter.
University of Arizona Press, 2008.
The book provides an excellent review of the
last few decades of international health research as well as suggestions for
where future research should lead. While the author suggests the importance of
perception, he also paints an accurate picture of the current challenges posed
to both social scientists and field practitioners for improving public health
in the developing world as well as encouraging the field to develop in
productive ways.
3:
Scrimshaw, Susan C. “Culture, Behavior, and Health”, 2006
Culture
permeates everything about how each of us views and approaches health, illness,
prevention, and healthcare systems. Everyone—health care provider, patients,
families and, community members—brings cultural understanding and experience to
their response to health maintenance and illness. In the article, the author
gives some key definitions of concepts such as culture, culture change, and
ethnicity, and goes on to illustrate the importance of culture influence in
health care.
4:
Williams, Raymond. Originally published in N. McKenzie (ed.), Convictions,
21958, in class lecture, 2012.
5:
Wikipedia, online web, 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment