Medical Technology and Technique

Anthropology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sameena Mulla

The rich array of anthropological research on medical technology has primarily been carried out by anthropologists with specialization in medical anthropology, and science and technology studies. This research benefits from its conversations with the history of medicine. Among journals that have frequently published in this area are: Anthropology and Medicine; Culture, Health and Psychiatry; Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Health Sciences; Medical Anthropology: Cross-Cultural Studies in Health and Illness; Medical Anthropology Quarterly; Medicine Anthropology Theory; Social History of Medicine; Social Studies of Science; and Sociology of Health and Illness. In this bibliography, material is organized thematically into eleven substantive sections to include work that exemplifies both long-standing topics as well as emerging frontiers of research. The first section introduces readers to the framework of biopolitics that often contextualizes scholarship on technology. Next, the reader is introduced to theorizing technology in relation to technique. This is followed by the issue of discipline in relation to medicine. The next two sections describe sensory practices encompassing the audio and the haptic. The article then turns to the conditions under which technologies are produced and used, treating the question of politics before discussing systems of subjugation. After this, the next section highlights technologies of rendering, broken down into visual technology, writing, and enumeration. The final three sections cover reproductive health, pharmaceuticals, and subjectivities. These topics represent dense nodes of anthropological scholarship that have informed the broader approach of anthropological research on technology and technique.

1982 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 165-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
John V. Pickstone

I know the historical sociology of religion only as an outsider; as an historian of medicine helped by that literature to a better understanding of early industrial society and perhaps to a clearer vision of what the social history of medicine ought to be. To read a recent review of the social history of religion, such as A. D. Gilbert’s Religion and Society in Industrial England, Church, Chapel and Social Change, 1740-1914, is to recognise how underdeveloped by comparison is the social history of medicine. Historians of medicine have the equivalent of church histories, of histories of theology and, of course, biographies of divines, but we lack the quantitative and comprehensive surveys of the chronological and geographical patterns in lay attendance and membership, and in professional recruitment and modes of work. For as long as medicine was generally only a transaction between an individual and his medical attendant, few statistics were produced and there is little national data. Yet there are very few local studies of how diseases were handled and how the various kinds of practitioner interacted with each other and with their various publics, so it will be some time before we shall be able to generalise on such matters.


Isis ◽  
1979 ◽  
Vol 70 (3) ◽  
pp. 453-454
Author(s):  
John M. Eyler

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document