摘要
本文通过呈现有关“医学知识”、“权力”和“社会关系”的理论探讨,并主要以19世纪30—40年代英国公共卫生的史学书写为例,展现公共卫生史的书写与西方史学理论发展的互动状况。自20世纪70年代起,社会建构论冲击了辉格史学所依据的科学与医学的认知地位。医学知识被认为是社会建构的产物,此种新的认知方式为学者挖掘医学知识与社会、权力之间的关系提供了理论支持。此后,医学社会学、批判理论、福柯的话语分析方式和“知识/权力”论述,以及文化研究等路径被史家吸纳,用以呈现公共卫生在道德控管、塑造社会关系和权力关系等方面的多重面向。但医学史家在借鉴其他学科的研究路径和概念时,困境依然存在。近些年,学者通过重新审视公共卫生史书写中所理解的医学知识、采纳的概念范畴、道德政治预设,并以重视修辞学、借鉴STS研究方法和强调身体与个人主体性建构等方式来回应学界对社会建构论和医学社会史的反思,革新公共卫生史的编撰。
Presenting theoretical discussions related to“medical knowledge,”“power,”and“social relations,”as well as drawing on research of the early British public health movement,this article shows the interaction between the historical writings of the public health and the development of the Western historiography.Since the 1970s,social constructionism has impaired the cognitive status of science and medicine on which the Whig history was based.Medical knowledge was considered to be socially constructed,and this new cognitive approach provided a theoretical framework for scholars to explore the relationship between medical knowledge,society,and power.Since then,medical sociology,critical theory,Foucault’s discourse analysis and“knowledge/power”,and cultural studies have been adopted by historians to present the multiple aspects of public health in terms of moral control,shaping social relations and power relations.However,the dilemma remains when medical historians draw on the research approach and conceptual tools from other disciplines.In recent years,scholars have responded to critical appraisals of social constructionism and the social history of medicine in various ways,namely reexamining medical knowledge,conceptual categories,and moral-political presuppositions in writings of the history of public health,valuing rhetoric,drawing on STS research methods,and emphasizing the body and the construction of personal subjectivity.By doing so,they are revolutionizing the writings of public health history.
出处
《医疗社会史研究》
2022年第2期186-216,331-332,共33页
Journal of Social History of Medicine and Health
作者简介
张晶晶,复旦大学历史系博士研究生
