...on alternative medicine:
ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE
Natural. Holistic. Whole-body approach. Individual responsibility. Synergistic. Traditional. Non-hierarchical. Disease as deviation from health. Energy. Life-building. Constructive. Vitalizing. Positive forces. Health as lifelong art. Functional diagnoses. Full and active cooperation. Balance. Strengthening. Restorative processes. Self. Spiritual. Feminine. Benefit. Human. Simplicity. Safety. Health-strengthening forces and life-style. Horizontally organized. Awareness.
Just as conventional medicine does little to actually define itself except in terms of its opposition to other forms of medical practice, alternative medicine also shows some reluctance or failure to fully address and define what constitutes alternative medicine as an actual method of medicine. However, when comparing the list above to the list under “Conventional medicine on conventional
medicine,” it becomes clearer that it might be more difficult to define alternative medicine in the first place. Ning suggests that this might be because alternative medicine can be defined simply as “medical practices that are not presently accepted as part of orthodox, state-regulated health care,” and these procedures constitute an “extensive array of practices, approaches and philosophies, many without common linkages” (136). What does seem to link the wide range of alternative therapies and ideas together is their approach to whole-body health. The key to lifelong health is, as alternative medicine proponents suggest, a “simultaneous maintenance of an internal and external balance” (Aakster 267). Furthermore, there is an emphasis on the “diagnosis [as] a total diagnosis, not just a description of symptoms” (Aakster 269). What this signals is that alternative medicine positions itself as seeing the bigger picture in terms of an individual’s well-being and lifestyle, and not just individuals problems to be solved and repaired as needed. Whereas conventional medicine simply diagnoses Tim’s (and then Topsy’s) sore throat and prescribes some non-specific “medicine,” an alternative approach might be to see what other factors (environmental, social, mental) might be causing or exasperating the pain for Tim and Topsy respectively.
The attention to the individual patient’s full body and mind constitutes an important shift in thinking from conventional medicine. This is echoed in Ning’s remarks about Wittgenstein, who said that there is no “human agreement about what is true and false, only about what human beings say is true and false” [author’s emphasis] (138). Alternative medicine’s focus on the individual and how we define medicine, health and truth position alternative practices more in the realm of humanism, which contrasts with conventional medicine’s foundation on rationalism. To this end, proponents and practitioners of alternative medicine see no reason why alternative practices and therapies should be evaluated using the same scientific standards and “analytical methods” as conventional medicine (Aakster 270). In this way, alternative medicine seems to call for a new approach to medicine, for a redefinition of reality, as Aakster deems it (272). Perhaps then the rise of alternative medicine in contemporary times signifies a retroactive or nostalgia-driven paradigm shift, one in which individuals turn away from using technology to solve their problems by employing a health system that is more simple, more natural, and thus more humane. This goes hand-in-hand with the idea that health is a “human problem to be solved by human means,” not a “technical problem” to be fixed with technology (Aakster 272). By being mindful of our health, both in body and mind, alternative medicine argues that we can return to the natural order of life.
...on conventional medicine:
Politically dominant. Ideology. Assumptions. Abnormalities to be fixed. Body as a machine. Parts that do not work. Replace parts that fail. Synthetic. Polluting. Invasive. Knowledge monopoly. Restrictive. Preoccupation with disease. Health as deviance from disease. Authority. Violent. Mutilating. Painful. Arrogance of Western rational thinking. Strong. Dominating. Aggressive. Masculine. Expensive. Highly complex. Almost un-manageable.
Despite common perception that alternative medicine practitioners and advocates are all for love and peace among mankind, they are not, however, immune to using the binary
opposition between alternative and conventional medicine and thus the hostile rhetoric associated with it. This is most prominent in how alternative medicine practitioners view conventional medical ideology as viewing human beings as machines composed of parts that can break, but which are repairable only by science and technology. In this way, conventional medicine relies on “biological reductionism,” or the idea that it can “reduce ill health to biological abnormalities to the exclusion of wider emotional, social and political factors” that might affect one’s health (Ning 140). Tim’s sore throat is just a problem to be fixed at one point in time by one particular medication, and not necessarily something that should be examined in light of other circumstances. Instead of focusing on the individual’s health and well-being, alternative medicine believes conventional medicine as having a “pre-occupation with disease” and this in turn moves conventional practices away from treating a human being in favor of treating the disease or problem, distancing medicine from humanity (Aakster 267). Therefore, if alternative medicine is more humane and comprehensive, “natural” and “pure”, then conventional medicine is heartless and restrictive, “synthetic” and “polluting” (Ning 146). Additionally, conventional medicine is seen as using too much “violence,” causing too many “various side-effects” and containing “mutilating operations… [and] painful diagnostic investigations” (Aakster 268). All these words hold very specific connotations that make the audience think of the mad scientist in his laboratory cutting open a monster rather than helping little Tim feel better.
Furthermore, alternative medicine proponents remind us that “despite its claims of scientific objectivity, [conventional medicine] is neither culture or value-free” (Ning 145). That is, since it is the dominant health system of the Western world, it holds within it the “dominant philosophical belief system” and its corresponding ideology (145). That is, we can study the rhetoric of medicine because it is an ideology and a discourse (per Foucault). Ning furthers this argument by suggesting that conventional medicine is “premised upon a number of fervently held beliefs… [which] are produced, accepted and transmitted in a political and social context” (146). In order to be part of the discourse, one must be part of the discursive community, and in this case, it would mean being a doctor, healthcare practitioner, nurse, surgeon, etc. The circular and exclusive community perpetuates the ideas and dogma of medicine as scientific truth by keeping the medical profession as a titled prestige position, effectively keeping individuals with lay knowledge from functioning as participants. That is, alternative medicine argues that if a particular disease or diagnosis is identified only “with a non-understandable Latin name, which can only be measured by experts and which can only be cured by doctors,” then it remains to be seen how the individual patient becomes a participant in their own health decisions (Aakster 268). Conventional medicine, therefore, is seen as aggressive, dominating, restricted, and insular, ruled by the elite and practicable only by those deemed worthy enough. Obviously it is entirely logical to desire that the surgeon who is going to be operating on you holds a medical degree and has completed the extensive years of training, but the rhetoric of alternative medicine is that conventional medicine sees health as only advisable by “experts” who use the scientific standard, thereby negating or condemning any other method or approach.
