Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980331173452.007f0100@osf1.gmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 17:34:52 -0500
To: William Magee <magee@chass.utoronto.ca>
From: "Jeanne A.B. Calabro" <jcalabro@osf1.gmu.edu>
Subject: Re: modernization & medicine: need help on concept
Cc: MedSoc@csf.colorado.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
There have been different relationships between uniqueness or individual
difference and social value (i.e., the difference between being socially
worthwhile to being a clinical object or even being considered subhuman) in
different periods of history. Although this may present with an ongoing
dialectic, the tension may exist in the reality of institutional
arrangements rather than the theory that tries to explain them. It is the
old tension of the individual versus the institutions--sometimes individual
perceptions conform to institutional tendencies, and sometimes they are a
reaction against them. Theories do not always relate to situations of
harmony, but you are right that usually when we think of functionalist
theories, we equate equilibrium with harmony. 
	Also interesting is this trend of market-driven health care to transform
people into cases. This was the same trend (transforming people into cases)
that German physicians cited as the reason why Nazi doctors could perform
medical experiments on concentration camp residents.
	Anyway, about your class tomorrow--I have found it very enlightening to
present anything I perceive to be a paradox to my classes for discussion.
They have little loyalty to theories nor are they as entrenched in the
sociological perspective and bring a lot of insight to bear in such
discussions. Also it gives the teacher the chance to be the sociological
voice to hopefully add to the student's understanding as well.
Have a great class! Jeanne Calabro

At 04:31 PM 3/31/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Hi,
>I assigned   Eugene Gallaghers' (1993) paper in Conrad & Gallagher _Health
>& Health Care in Developing Countries_  to my class, and am confused about
>how to explain the following paradox to my students (tomorrow). Any
>advice?
>
>My reading of Gallaghers' interpretation of Peter Bergers' take on
>modernization is that modernity results in (or maybe even is defined by)
>individuals concieving themselves as having "an inner biological
>uniqueness", as well as personal and moral uniqueness (p. 288). On the
>other hand, modern health care tranforms the patient from "a socially
>endowed and and identified person into a socially
>neutral, clinical case" (p 290). Does anyone know how this paradox is
>handeled in modernization theory? -- or should I take this to be a sign of
>the weakness of the theory (perhaps indicative of broader problems with
>the Functionalism from which the theory is derived)?
>
>Thanks,  Bill Magee
>	 Univ. of Toronto
>
>
>
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________________
Jeanne A.B. Calabro		Home Phone:  703/450-5460
104 Norwood Place		E-mail:      jcalabro@osf1.gmu.edu
Sterling, Virginia 20164-8503	Affiliation: Brandeis University
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sociology changes the world." Personal opinion
___________________________________________________________________