There has been a huge explosion of studies in medical anthropology – some good, some indifferent, and many appalling – in recent years. How does one explain this? Is it related to the sexiness of Faoucaldian post-structuralism? Of Subaltern Studies and their disillusionment with political economy? Is it what Mamdani incisively describes as “ culture talk”, a neo-Orientalist project, with huge political implications (Mamdani 2004)? Indeed even those who contest this seem to do so extremely defensively, using the same impossible language (Goswami 2004).
As a student of public health, I should be devoted to large-scale data, population- based data, data for example thrown up in surveys by the NSS and in the NFHS. My epidemiological instincts tell me this data is important and can perhaps teach us a lot about the determinants of health, and not just prevalence and incidence rates. However, given the kind of banal associations that most analyses of large- scale data give us, there is reason to be skeptical.
Ethnographic studies cannot supplant large-scale data – and good ethnographic studies, as in the case of the book under review, do not claim to be “representative”. On the other hand, ethnographic studies provide us a richness of “thick data”, of processes and lived experience, the incandescence of the everyday, that also illumines health, as perhaps few studies can.
Lần đầu đọc mà đã muốn theo dõi bạn luôn.
974745 795341the most common table lamp these days still use incandescent lamp but some of them use compact fluorescent lamps which are cool to touch.. 209699