IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v58y2004i4p703-712.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Schism and heresy in the development of orthodox medicine: The threat to medical hegemony

Author

Listed:
  • Jones, R. Kenneth

Abstract

Medical and scientific knowledge is not intrinsically different from other kinds of knowledge and has gone through the same processes in terms of its development. As a profession, medicine achieved its dominance in the 19th century and has subsequently consolidated its power base. A socio-historical perspective shows us that medicine has no more and no less fraud, heresy, schism, and relative knowledge than any other equivalent forms of knowledge. Orthodox medicine emerged from a number of healing systems in the 19th century by claiming the superiority and consequent authority of the biomedical model and its special relationship to laboratory science. This process has been seen by some to resemble the growth of religious orthodoxy and the emergence of alternative beliefs with the dissenting medical systems, based on different paradigms, becoming analogous to religious sects. An increasing body of opinion rejects the notion of "objective" knowledge and sees medical knowledge and practice as "socially constructed". An examination of HIV/AIDS measurement and 19th century craniology and contagion and anti-contagion theories indicates processes which are "contextual" rather than "objective". Heresy and schism are natural concomitants of socially constructed knowledge, functioning as providers of impetus and change and, as such, are to be welcomed as non-orthodox challenges.

Suggested Citation

  • Jones, R. Kenneth, 2004. "Schism and heresy in the development of orthodox medicine: The threat to medical hegemony," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 703-712, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:58:y:2004:i:4:p:703-712
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(03)00222-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:58:y:2004:i:4:p:703-712. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.