Systema amphibiorum lymphaticum disquisitionibus novis examinatum

Meyer, Joseph

Globus, 75.1899

Bibliographische Daten

Monographie

Strukturtyp:: Monographie

Werks-URN (URL):: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-709574

URN:: urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-709574

Persistenter Identifier:: BV042053692

Titel:: Systema amphibiorum lymphaticum disquisitionibus novis examinatum

Untertitel:: acced. tab. V lapide incis.

Autor:: Meyer, Joseph

Erscheinungsort:: Berlin

Erscheinungsjahr:: 1845

Beschreibung:: Medizingeschichte

Signatur:: Berlin:Univ.:Med.Fak.:Diss.:1845:Meyer:F8

Sammlung:: Allgemeiner Bestand

Wissensgebiet:: Medizingeschichte

Vorderer Einband

Strukturtyp:: Vorderer Einband

Sammlung:: Allgemeiner Bestand

212 YvANn LEANZA According to FoucAuLT (1976), power is consub- stantial with knowledge. It is by way of the knowl- edge acquired in a particular field, for example, knowledge about sexuality, human biology, child- hood, etc., that a form of power is born, exists (in the application of this knowledge on others), and can perpetuate itself (knowledge transmission). Knowledge provides an advantage, or even an influ- ence over those who do not possess it. The medical doctor knows what is good and what is not good for your health. A power relation is then estab- lished between he who knows, the expert, and the secular, where the latter is considered ignorant, or as holders of an inappropriate knowledge. However, even though an organization of knowledge-power seems to have already been fixed by the institutions. FOoucAUuLT insists on the mobility of power. It var- les continually. In other words, power relations are dynamic. Speech is an important source of power, it means having the possibility to shape the world, to redefine it for those who are listening. It means drawing the limits between what is good and what is bad, between us and them, between what is normal and what is pathological, ... Just as FOoucAuLT (1983) other im- portant thinkers of our time (BoUuRDIEU 1982; FAIR- CLOUGH 2001; HABERMAS 1995) have discussed the relationship between power and discourse (a speech that is formatted for a particular context). BOURDIEU estimates that words model a certain social order, which in turn facilitates the use of power in ways that perpetuate that same social order, at least for those who master discourse. The spokespersons are precisely those who master discourse and who bet- ter represent the social order. They are experts ın the art of handling words that touch the social order, which has been previously prepared (socialized) to hear and be touched by those words. Therefore words would hold a “typically magical power: the power to convince, the power to encourage action” (ERIBON 1982). It is possibly what FoucaAuLrT had already named as the “frightening materialization of discourse” (p. 11) which led him to state in his opening lesson at the College de France, that every society establishes rigid rules concerning the use of discourse. If discourse supports the established social order, it is nonetheless a danger to that or- der. That said, several measures limit its impact: exclusion measures which allow discourse to be mastered from the exterior, and avoid an overflow of power and desire; internal exclusion measures in the discourse per se which help to avoid random ap- pearances of power (and the risks that this implies); and finally measures that determine the conditions in which it is possible and permitted to hold a dis- course. “Nobody will enter the discourse’s order if he does not satisfy certain demands or if he is not, heads on, qualified to do so” (p- 39). The last group of measures is responsible for the exclusiveness of those who are allowed to speak, which in turn fa- cilitates their control over discourse. For example, a random adult, or even an experienced parent cannot hold a discourse on child health issues. One must first be “ordained” in a social group recognized for having the rights of speech on the subject. The ex- pertise of this group should not question the estab- lished social order. In a nutshell, this brief presentation of power and discourse states that 1) power can be seen as circu- lating between people, without it being the property of an institution or an individual in particular, 2) discourse is a form of power, and 3) there are social rules that guide the practice of discourse in order to limit its impact and maintain the established social order, Power and the health-care context Health-care institutions are often used as examples of harmful effects, or even of abuse in power rela- tions. Several researches have revealed the existence of power relations which take place in hospitals or in general as well as specialist consultations. MISHLER (1984), in his famous analysis inspired on HABER- MAS’ thinking, reveals that American (United States) doctors, by way of discursive methods, impose an instrumental vision of disease and treatment, dis- couraging the more social and emotionally tainted vision of the patient. He underlines the systematic effort of domination that biomedical representatives aspire to maintain in the dialogue during consulta- tion. He calls these consultations “the unremarkable interviews” (it is the absence of a mutual dialogue that makes them unremarkable). However, power relations in medical consultations are not always one-way, with a doctor in the strong position and a patient in a passive and dominated position. In the 80’s, SILVERMAN (1981) was already showing how pediatricians from Great Britain made way to ne- VWB — Verlag für Wissenschaft und Bildung

Zugriffsbeschränkung

Nutzungslizenz

Inhalt / Download : Globus, 75.1899

Monographie

Vorderer Einband

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Downloads

Ganzer Datensatz

Diese Seite

Seitenauswahl

Bildfragment

Formate und Verlinkungen

Links

Zitieren

Ganzer Datensatz

Diese Seite

Zitierempfehlung