spirit and healing in africa - University of the Free State

spirit and healing in africa - University of the Free State spirit and healing in africa - University of the Free State

etd.uovs.ac.za
from etd.uovs.ac.za More from this publisher
23.06.2013 Views

personnel with all kinds of specializations, the pharmaceutical industry, medical insurances, and international organizations like Medicins sans Frontiers. The biomedical model reflects a scientific approach to health, based on reductionist logic combined with a preference for scientific neutrality pertaining to health. This means that all kinds of subjectivities and contingencies are left out in the acquisition of medical knowledge and in the treatment of a patient. Not surprisingly, one of the features of the biomedical model is the focus on disease. The idea that the incidence of disease implies the absence of health, sharpened biomedicine’s focus on the abnormal condition of health, with the result that representatives of the biomedical model are more concerned with the aberrations of health (that is, disease) than with manifestations of health. Expressions like ‘conquering the disease’ andthe battle against AIDS’ are typical for the biomedical model since it reveals modern thinking about development, human progress and control. The social constructivism model Towards the end of the 1970’s a new perspective on how to define health emerged, for the reductionist model of health and its focus on disease and the body did not do justice to other dimensions of health. Factors like political, social, economic and personal circumstances were generally not taken into consideration in the efforts to halt the disease. Things started to change radically under the influence of the work of Michel Foucault, and the social constructivist approach entered the health disciplines. This approach cast new light on the perception of health by addressing the very processes of distributing health knowledge. The implication of the social constructivist model is that the perception of health (and illness) is continuously being constructed in the words, thoughts and experiences of people. Thus, health is not something objective that is understood by everyone in the same way, and illness is not something that is being treated the same way everywhere in the world; health is constructed by the individual as well as by the group, who affirm and sustain that specific construct. In the social constructivist model it is not possible to understand ‘health’ by one definition or broad description, because health is seen as a complex collection of perceptions that are produced within specific discourses. According to the social constructivist approach, for example, the biomedical model is just one culturally determined discourse among many other health discourses. The exact definition of health, is not fixed in a particular objective idea, but comes into existence when the role of culture, power relations and dominant knowledge are considered as, and linked with, the ideas and practices of those who seek health. 26

1.2 MEANING OF SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM IN HEALTH RESEARCH The social constructivist model provides the theoretical framework for this research on health, illness and healing in the African context, because it clarifies the theories about health in such a way that these constructs can be used for further interdisciplinary research on health. Social constructivism 5 is an important framework provider for reflection on health in the African context in at least three ways: first of all, social constructivism draws the attention to social structures; in doing so, a focus on health-oriented approaches is generated, and this is a crucial addition to the existing frame of ‘fighting disease’; finally, the social constructivist model offers new opportunities for Reformed theology to reflect on health, illness and healing. 1.2.1 Social structures The significance of the social constructivist approach has to do, among other things, with its focus on social structures that co-determine the perception of health. Health conceptualizations are the result of how people view reality based on who they are, where they live, what they have experienced and what kind of information they can access. Health as construct implies that the personal perspective moulds the reality of health or disease. For example, someone belonging to the working or low-income classes may define pain in a different way to someone belonging to a high-income class of the same society, due to the fact that the higher-income class may experience fewer obstacles in accessing knowledge of diseases, treatment and medication. Various factors like class, gender, religion, sexuality, ethnic background, education, type of work and hobbies are important reference points in the social structures that determine the way people define health, recognize disease, or seek treatment of the health condition. This means that health is more than the visible condition of the individual, because health is directly related to the social structures of which the individual is fully part. The consideration of culture, identity, power relations, gender and class as essential constituents of health constructions does not only address the dimension of social structures (and hence of the presence of power and knowledge as parameters of human organizations), but it also implies that the social constructs reflect tendencies or changes within the social organization. The social constructivism approach thus offers a helpful frame for exploring and discerning transformation 5. Social constructivism should not be confused with social constructionism. Both concepts have to do with the development of social phenomena, yet the difference is in the emphasis. Social constructionism is about the construction of phenomena that are related to social contexts, while social constructivism puts the emphasis on how individuals construct meaning on the basis of available knowledge. Lev Vygotsky, a cognitive psychologist and a social constructivist theorist, stresses the critical importance of one’s social context for cognitive development and meaning-making. 27

personnel with all k<strong>in</strong>ds <strong>of</strong> specializations, <strong>the</strong> pharmaceutical <strong>in</strong>dustry, medical <strong>in</strong>surances, <strong>and</strong><br />

<strong>in</strong>ternational organizations like Medic<strong>in</strong>s sans Frontiers. The biomedical model reflects a<br />

scientific approach to health, based on reductionist logic comb<strong>in</strong>ed with a preference for<br />

scientific neutrality perta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g to health. This means that all k<strong>in</strong>ds <strong>of</strong> subjectivities <strong>and</strong><br />

cont<strong>in</strong>gencies are left out <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> acquisition <strong>of</strong> medical knowledge <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> treatment <strong>of</strong> a<br />

patient. Not surpris<strong>in</strong>gly, one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> features <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> biomedical model is <strong>the</strong> focus on disease. The<br />

idea that <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>cidence <strong>of</strong> disease implies <strong>the</strong> absence <strong>of</strong> health, sharpened biomedic<strong>in</strong>e’s focus<br />

on <strong>the</strong> abnormal condition <strong>of</strong> health, with <strong>the</strong> result that representatives <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> biomedical model<br />

are more concerned with <strong>the</strong> aberrations <strong>of</strong> health (that is, disease) than with manifestations <strong>of</strong><br />

health. Expressions like ‘conquer<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> disease’ <strong>and</strong> ‘<strong>the</strong> battle aga<strong>in</strong>st AIDS’ are typical for <strong>the</strong><br />

biomedical model s<strong>in</strong>ce it reveals modern th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g about development, human progress <strong>and</strong><br />

control.<br />

The social constructivism model<br />

Towards <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1970’s a new perspective on how to def<strong>in</strong>e health emerged, for <strong>the</strong><br />

reductionist model <strong>of</strong> health <strong>and</strong> its focus on disease <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> body did not do justice to o<strong>the</strong>r<br />

dimensions <strong>of</strong> health. Factors like political, social, economic <strong>and</strong> personal circumstances were<br />

generally not taken <strong>in</strong>to consideration <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> efforts to halt <strong>the</strong> disease. Th<strong>in</strong>gs started to change<br />

radically under <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong> Michel Foucault, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> social constructivist<br />

approach entered <strong>the</strong> health discipl<strong>in</strong>es. This approach cast new light on <strong>the</strong> perception <strong>of</strong> health<br />

by address<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> very processes <strong>of</strong> distribut<strong>in</strong>g health knowledge. The implication <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> social<br />

constructivist model is that <strong>the</strong> perception <strong>of</strong> health (<strong>and</strong> illness) is cont<strong>in</strong>uously be<strong>in</strong>g<br />

constructed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> words, thoughts <strong>and</strong> experiences <strong>of</strong> people. Thus, health is not someth<strong>in</strong>g<br />

objective that is understood by everyone <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> same way, <strong>and</strong> illness is not someth<strong>in</strong>g that is<br />

be<strong>in</strong>g treated <strong>the</strong> same way everywhere <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> world; health is constructed by <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual as<br />

well as by <strong>the</strong> group, who affirm <strong>and</strong> susta<strong>in</strong> that specific construct. In <strong>the</strong> social constructivist<br />

model it is not possible to underst<strong>and</strong> ‘health’ by one def<strong>in</strong>ition or broad description, because<br />

health is seen as a complex collection <strong>of</strong> perceptions that are produced with<strong>in</strong> specific<br />

discourses. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> social constructivist approach, for example, <strong>the</strong> biomedical model is<br />

just one culturally determ<strong>in</strong>ed discourse among many o<strong>the</strong>r health discourses. The exact<br />

def<strong>in</strong>ition <strong>of</strong> health, is not fixed <strong>in</strong> a particular objective idea, but comes <strong>in</strong>to existence when <strong>the</strong><br />

role <strong>of</strong> culture, power relations <strong>and</strong> dom<strong>in</strong>ant knowledge are considered as, <strong>and</strong> l<strong>in</strong>ked with, <strong>the</strong><br />

ideas <strong>and</strong> practices <strong>of</strong> those who seek health.<br />

26

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!