History of homeopathy and social history of medicine: the story of a successful marriage

The Institute for the History of Medicine (IGM) was established in 1980 by the Robert Bosch Foundation, in Stuttgart, Germany, on the basis of a collection of documents and other small objects belonging to Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy. However, since its very inception, its directors considered that the history of homeopathy also had a role to play in the larger picture of the history of medicine. On the other hand, the history of homeopathy was not restricted to the account of the development of ideas and careers of practitioners, but it would benefit significantly by approaching it from the perspective of social history, including the study of institutions, patients’ views, lay supporting societies and publications. This paper presents a review of this project as assessed by an analysis of recent publications that, taken as a whole, reflect the historiographical contribution of researchers at IGM.

Why Do We Do What We Do? The Values of the Social History of Medicine

At the Society for the Social History of Medicine (SSHM)’s biennial conference in Liverpool in July 2018, members gathered to discuss a short working paper developed by the Society’s executive committee to articulate the values underpinning the SSHM’s mission. The occasion marked the first public discussion of this document, in development since 2015, which was intended to encourage disciplinary self-awareness and engagement, to give a sense of the breadth and importance of work carried out in our field and to spark broader discussion. To further these aims as the Society celebrates its fiftieth anniversary, the working paper appears here, accompanied by a foreword from the Society’s Policy Development Officer and the lightly revised invited responses shared that day by five members at different career stages.

Social History of Medicine and Disability History

Disability history and social history of medicine are two subfields that share many common topics and sources but that approach them very differently. For medical historians, disability takes center stage as a problem that requires fixing, and the “victims” are primarily patients. For disability historians, disability suggests not just the person or practitioner, but also a unique understanding of all the elements, including politics, economics, and culture, that shape relationships for the disabled. Following a brief history of each subfield, two examples are presented—responses to epidemics and the idea of cure—to discuss how scholars can be in more productive conversation. As is demonstrated here, disability is not just a topic to be studied, but rather a tool of analysis. While the distinctive roots and purposes of the two subfields ensure that they will always be fundamentally incompatible, they can, and should, engage in productive conversation.

Epidemiology, social history, and the beginnings of medical anthropology in the highlands of New Guinea

Shirley Lindenbaum’s study in the early 1960s of the origins and transmission of kuru among the Fore people of the eastern highlands of New Guinea is one of the earliest examples of an explicitly medical anthropology. Lindenbaum later described her investigations as assembling ‘an epidemiology of social relations’. How might the emergence of medical anthropology, then, be related to the concurrent development of the social history of medicine and global epidemic intelligence? Are these alternative genealogies for medical anthropology?

Medical Misadventure in an Age of Professionalisation, 1780-1890

This book examines the turbulent careers of medical practitioners who wanted to become full members of the profession but were held back from the fulfilment of their ambitions. They might have fallen bankrupt, or have been forced to take a post that did not live up to their expectations. Alternatively they might have been accused of neglecting or injuring patients. Another possibility was that they felt the pressures of professional practice so severely that they fell ill or committed suicide. This book tells the stories of the unfortunate, deceptive and desperate doctors who tried and failed to earn a living, or who overcame substantial setbacks to their careers. It moves beyond the well-known examples of medical heroes and villains to reveal startling, poignant and sometimes equivocal experiences that complicate our understanding of medical professionalisation. By the end of the nineteenth century, for example, the behaviour of professional doctors aspired to be entirely disinterested; yet the continued existence of a medical marketplace demanded attention to personal gain and fostered covert competition between practitioners. This is also the first book to consider the parameters of a specifically medical masculinity and pressure points for medical male identities. As such it will be essential reading for undergraduates working on the social history of medicine, and a research text for academic treatments of professionalisation in medicine.