It is human nature to place confidence into science because it is heavily researched and thus perceived as the truth. Natural science carries a certain value in society, but Scheper-Hughes and Lock argue that it is the Western assumptions that have “determined the ways in which the body has been perceived” in biomedicine and anthropology (7). Considering the preeminence of scientific evidence and the fabrication of a culturally salient network, this phenomenon suggests, rather than universality, the importance of appreciation regarding these differences to understand the body as biologically produced and culturally influenced. The arguments presented in these readings suggest a need for problematization of biomedical approaches to illness under
…show more content…
Margaret Lock and Scheper-Hughes in The Mindful Body employ a tripartite schema to analyze the body, moving from the phenomenally experienced individual body, to the social, to the body politic. These viewpoints assume the body as “both naturally and culturally produced,” therefore situating the body in a wider context relative to individual attitudes and social interactions (7). Scheper-Hughes and Lock are quick to argue against the artificial separation of the “spirit and matter, mind and body, and (underlying this) real and unreal,” a concept knowingly termed Cartesian dualism (8). The authors highlight that bodies, aside from being biological entities, carry social meaning and can exhibit suffering and social marginalization, thus representing the mind-body interactions with the three bodies as what maintains health and illness, the very information needed for health practitioners to understand an individual’s suffering as equal to the biology behind the pain. Nevertheless, missing in this article is a coherent model that may reject Cartesian dualism. That Scheper-Hughes and Lock fail to provide such a model might hint at the inherent identification of the article as a prolegomenon, or a preliminary discussion of the biomedical approach at …show more content…
Biologists view egg production as wasteful because women merely shed “only one gamete a month” (486). Similarly, Martin explains that men “manufacture several hundred million sperms a day,” and are therefore extremely productive. The contrast reveals a devaluation of female body, as the differences concern male dominance and strength as having influenced how scientists view egg and sperm fusion. This perception soon became the standard, with recounts of the sperm “penetrating the egg” and releasing specific substances from its head (492). Recent scientific research suggests the egg plays a more active role and traps the sperm instead of the previously mentioned phenomenon. However, these contemporary views had already led to a flawed science. Martin’s analysis reveals that “culture shapes how biological scientists describe what they discover,” but it is important to note that, especially regarding the sperm and the egg, describing this phenomenon as purely biological would be nearly impossible without the assignment of gender-specific
Margaret Lock and Scheper-Hughes in The Mindful Body employ a tripartite schema to analyze the body, moving from the phenomenally experienced individual body, to the social, to the body politic. These viewpoints assume the body as “both naturally and culturally produced,” therefore situating the body in a wider context relative to individual attitudes and social interactions (7). Scheper-Hughes and Lock are quick to argue against the artificial separation of the “spirit and matter, mind and body, and (underlying this) real and unreal,” a concept knowingly termed Cartesian dualism (8). The authors highlight that bodies, aside from being biological entities, carry social meaning and can exhibit suffering and social marginalization, thus representing the mind-body interactions with the three bodies as what maintains health and illness, the very information needed for health practitioners to understand an individual’s suffering as equal to the biology behind the pain. Nevertheless, missing in this article is a coherent model that may reject Cartesian dualism. That Scheper-Hughes and Lock fail to provide such a model might hint at the inherent identification of the article as a prolegomenon, or a preliminary discussion of the biomedical approach at …show more content…
Biologists view egg production as wasteful because women merely shed “only one gamete a month” (486). Similarly, Martin explains that men “manufacture several hundred million sperms a day,” and are therefore extremely productive. The contrast reveals a devaluation of female body, as the differences concern male dominance and strength as having influenced how scientists view egg and sperm fusion. This perception soon became the standard, with recounts of the sperm “penetrating the egg” and releasing specific substances from its head (492). Recent scientific research suggests the egg plays a more active role and traps the sperm instead of the previously mentioned phenomenon. However, these contemporary views had already led to a flawed science. Martin’s analysis reveals that “culture shapes how biological scientists describe what they discover,” but it is important to note that, especially regarding the sperm and the egg, describing this phenomenon as purely biological would be nearly impossible without the assignment of gender-specific