IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v36y1993i6p783-791.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social science and the study of pain since Zborowski: A need for a new agenda

Author

Listed:
  • Encandela, John A.

Abstract

In 1969, anthropologist Mark Zborowski published People in Pain, in which he showed that pain is responded to by behaviors and attitudes learned by pain sufferers within the cultures in which they are socialized. Research for this work was accomplished at a time when a number of social scientists were deeply involved in inquiry about the relationship between the individual psyche and society, and were, therefor, interested in subjective experiences of individuals. For reasons discussed in this article, social researchers shifted their focus, in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s, from the study of subjective experience to research pertaining to more objectively verifiable phenomena. Consequently, because pain is not easily measurable, relatively few studies illuminating the human experience of pain were performed by social scientists since Zborowski completed his work. This article provides an overview of the small but pertinent research that has been conducted since the late 1960s, and challenges social scientists to develop a new agenda for the study of pain experiences. This research may be especially timely now, when there seems to be renewed interest among social scientists to study subjective experiences.

Suggested Citation

  • Encandela, John A., 1993. "Social science and the study of pain since Zborowski: A need for a new agenda," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 783-791, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:36:y:1993:i:6:p:783-791
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(93)90039-7
    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:36:y:1993:i:6:p:783-791. 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.