Probably the most commonly used term for this group of healing practices in sociology is ‘complementary and alternative medicine’ (CAM), which is a rather indecisive term given that the difference between a state of complementarity, where two things mutually enhance each other's qualities, and positioning a practice as an ‘alternative’ are very different, both practically and sociologically. First, that naming is an exercise in power that in this field tends to be reflective of ‘Western’ biomedical dominance internationally and, second, that the dualism evident in most terms and definitions used is a product of historical social construction. Rather than rehearsing all the cases for and against different terminological stances for these medical and healing practices, which may simply result in stalemate, I want to make two overarching arguments about terminology in this field that are relevant for sociological enquiry. Finally, I examine the role of sociology moving forward. The big question, ‘Does it work?’, is one of epistemology, and I focus on two developing fields of critical enquiry – first, social critiques of biomedical science knowledge production and, second, attempts to explain the nature of interventions, i.e. I start with the concept of pluralism and then move on to explore other interpretations, namely, integration, hybridity and activism. The big picture includes concepts that offer interpretation of what is happening at a societal level to constrain and enable the patterns of social practice we see. Then, I turn to two newer strands of work, which I term the ‘big picture’ and the ‘big question’. Research on the experiences, attitudes and practices of users and practitioners of TM/CAM has been the empirical foundation on which the sociology of TM/CAM has been built and continues to be refined, developed and theorized. Second, I consider the social actors involved in the field. First, I address the question of terminology, arguing that the naming process itself is a glimpse into the complexities of power and history that characterize this field. In this article, I set out to critically review the sociology of TM and CAM, focusing on the last 15 years of scholarship.
Over the last 15 years, there has been an explosion of published literature in the field, 1 and this young sub-discipline is starting to show signs of maturing, evidenced by the growing range and enhanced sophistication of some of the published work in the area. In 1999, Siahpush published a review of this emerging field of study highlighting research in three areas – users of CAM, practitioners and the orthodoxy – and stressing the paucity of empirical research in the field. Any social phenomenon, especially one that generates so much controversy in wider society, is appealing to sociologists. Most commentators talk about the rising popularity of CAM, although it is unclear how the recent global economic downturn has affected this, especially given that few TMs or CAMs are available either on national or private health insurance schemes. What is clear is that these phenomena are socially patterned over time and space. In the ‘developing’ world, traditional medicines can be the ‘mainstay’ of health care delivery, particularly in remote or rural areas (WHO 2008, 2013). National and regional studies in the ‘developed’ world have shown high usage of CAM, especially for those with chronic diseases, such as cancer (Molassiotis et al. Finally, the article examines the role of sociology moving forward.Ĭomplementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and traditional medicine (TM) are important social phenomena.
The big question, ‘Does it work?’, is one of epistemology and focuses on two developing fields of critical enquiry – first, social critiques of medical science knowledge production and, second, attempts to explain the nature of interventions, i.e. The big picture includes concepts that offer interpretation of what is happening at a societal level to constrain and enable observed patterns of social practice (pluralism, integration, hybridity and activism). Third, it addresses two newer strands of work termed here the ‘big picture’ and the ‘big question’. Second, focusing on the last 15 years of scholarship, it considers how sociological research on users and practitioners of TM/CAM has developed in that time. First, it addresses the question of terminology, arguing that the naming process is a glimpse into the complexities of power and history that characterize the field. This article reviews the sociological literature on the topic. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and traditional medicine (TM) are important social phenomena.
0 kommentar(er)
