Author: Clare Jocelyn Mangubat
As a theoretical instrument to examine the modern experiences of “traditional medicines” (Mukharji, 2019d) neo-traditionalism entangles with the omnipresence of biomedicine, engenders multifarious healing exercises within single practices, and is subjugated by and participates in globalization.
Neotraditionalism allows traditional medicines to coexist with biomedicine (Mukharji, 2019d). This relationship is not simply the presence of two different systems living at the same time but rather multiple complexities constantly enmeshing as they interact with one other. The scientization of traditional medicines validates traditional practices (Mukharji, 2019e) but reframes traditional theories to align with contemporary concepts. For example, this is happening with orientalist revitalization, which attempts to prove that Ayurveda practices are medically comparable to biomedicine (Panikkar, 1992, p. 305). The scientization of traditional medicines forces them to fit into strict but enigmatic schemes. If biomedicine is based on knowledge, then Unani tibb fits that framework by building upon STEM foundations (e.g., chemistry, botany, physics) (Liebeskind, 2002, p. 64). If biomedicine is based on causation, diagnosis, and treatment of disease, then Unani medicine fulfills that framework by historically considering the same concepts (Liebeskind, 2002, p. 65). However, biomedicine and Unani medicine are more than knowledge and interaction with disease. Traditional medicines seek alignment with biomedical frameworks, but these frameworks are not clearly defined. Biomedicine has no clear cut-offs in its definition, and yet it is exclusive. Not only are traditional medicines attempting to meet confusing standards set by biomedicine to live as legitimate medicines, but they are combating these standards. While achieving validation, the scientization of traditional medicines also begets questioning of the authority and definition of biomedicine. Abd al Latif posits that if biomedicine is based on research, then Unani medicine may be superior as it is solely based on theory since experiments are more susceptible to error than intellectual thinking (Liebeskind, 2002, p. 66). Traditional medicines are not all passively submitting to notions of biomedicine; by having to be examined alongside biomedicine definitions, they challenge these definitions that attempt to supersede them. Neotraditionalism depicts the coexistence of traditional and contemporary medicines as complicated entanglement such that traditional medicines are constantly living up to, levelling with, and competing with biomedicine for legitimacy.
Neotraditionalism generates greater diversity among individual healing practices within traditional systems that have already been seeing diverse individual practices. Because traditional medicines generally have not been standardized, variation among practice has been historically present. For example, Unani medicine has never had an institutionalized set of health providers (Liebeskind, 2002, p. 60). Tibetan medicines are diverse as they have been living in many areas (e.g., Tibet, Nepal, Mainland China, Mongolia) (Laurent, 2008, p. 19). These traditional systems must be examined in their pluralities (e.g., originating territories, history, influence of modern policies, cultural context, migration of people, diffusion of ideas (Laurent, 2008, p. 14; Mukharji, 2019f) since these pluralities have been engendering diverse practice within traditional medicines. These multiple pluralities correspondingly have generated multiple modernities, which have independently matured depending on the developments that occurred and the chronology that these developments took place in (Mukharji, 2019d). The introduction of the printing press (Mukharji, 2019a), progression in transportation (Mukharji, 2019a), advancement in technology, acquaintance with different theories of medicine, time when these events took place, and order in which these events took place affected the advancement of individual healing practices within traditional systems. Even the developments that react with traditional medicines within their plurality vary. For example, Germ theory spreads as multiple versions, technology produces varying results, focus on environment and individual immunity differs, and influence of religion depends on the culture (Mukharji, 2019a). Furthermore, neotraditionalism concurrently sees the selective integration of contemporary theories within cadres of traditional medicine providers. For example, Zhang Xichun in China still adopts Yin-depletion but accepts germ-theory and uses aspirin (Andrews, 1997, p. 140). Ding Fubao adopted a strict western version of germ theory (Andrews, 1997, p. 135). Traditional medicines are evolving as knowledge on the body and healing practices grow and become accessible, which generates greater diversity within individual healing activities as providers choose practices and theories that they vibe with. This constant interaction with and incorporation of biomedicine results in the braiding of contemporary and traditional medicines such that multiple theories about health and healing entangle with each other (Mukharji, 2019a) and inform practice. Neotraditionalism provides insight to the additional variations in individual practice within traditional medicines by having the foundation of diverse healing activities, multiple cultural contexts, historical divergences with modern interactions, and provider choice in contemporary integration.
While neotraditionalism allows traditional medicines to live in modern day, they are dominated by and contribute to globalization. Globalization of biomedicine and traditional medicines emerged as WHO diminished in power and as control over health policy shifted from government entities to private corporations (Bin et al., 2017, p. 34). Globalization has been generating the deterritorialization of neotraditionalism such that traditional theories and products are distributed over the world and separated from their historical territories and cultural context (Mukharji, 2019d). While this allows for increased profits as, for example, individuals in the United States are able to order bottles of Tibetan medicine through Amazon (Mukharji, 2019d), these traditional medicines may not be appropriately practiced. New users are taking part in traditional medicines that are not deeply connected to their history and culture, so they may not relate completely to the practices or ideas or even seriously believe in these traditional medicines. This creates collective disapproval of traditional medicines since new users with biomedicine preferences are presumably using products and participating in practice without understanding or relating to their cultural context, which perpetuates the notion that traditional medicines are inferior to contemporary medicine. The deterritorialization corresponds with a reterritorialization of neotraditionalism (Mukharji, 2019d) such that practice grows significantly in areas other than where the traditional medicine originated. Practice becomes competitive with contemporary medicine if it is presented with the same framework (Panikkar, 1992, p. 303). For example, oriental revitalization allowed Asian medicine to grow in Europe, but European advertising for Asian medicine with maternalistic themes and Caucasian actors were implemented (Mukharji, 2019d). Also, the scientization of Ayurveda portrays Ayurveda as modern-day science, and modern Ayurveda is marketed within the contexts of cosmetics and wellness (Panikkar, 1992, p. 307; Mukharji, 2019d). Globalization deterritorializes and reterritorializes traditional medicines to allow them to exist and spread at the expense of users adopting a cultural understanding of them and maintaining strong cultural ties because they do not have the globally-accepted wherewithal to be recognized as legitimate medicines.
Perspicacious analysis of neo-traditionalism reveals the constant interaction between traditional medicines and biomedicine, the generation of diverse healing activities within single systems, and submission and participation of traditional medicines to globalization.
Bibliography
Andrews, B. J. (1997). Tuberculosis and the assimilation of germ theory in China, 1895–1937. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 52(1), 114-157.
Birn, A. E., Pillay, Y., & Holtz, T. H. (2017). Textbook of global health. Oxford University Press.
Liebeskind, C. (2002). Arguing science: Unani tibb, hakims and biomedicine in India, 1900–50. In Plural Medicine, Tradition and Modernity, 1800-2000 (pp. 72-89). Routledge.
Mukharji, Profit Bijari. (2019a). Braiding Germ Theory. Personal Collection of the University of Profit Bijari Mukharji, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Mukharji, Profit Bijari. (2019b). Globalization. Personal Collection of the University of Profit Bijari Mukharji, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Mukharji, Profit Bijari. (2019c). Neo-traditionalism. Personal Collection of the University of Profit Bijari Mukharji, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Mukharji, Profit Bijari. (2019d). Orientalist Revitalization. Personal Collection of the University of Profit Bijari Mukharji, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Mukharji, Profit Bijari. (2019e). Scientization-Unani. Personal Collection of the University of Profit Bijari Mukharji, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Mukharji, Profit Bijari. (2019f). Tibetan Medicines. Personal Collection of the University of Profit Bijari Mukharji, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Panikkar, K. N. (1992). Indigenous medicine and cultural hegemony: A study of the revitalization movement in Keralam. Studies in History, 8(2), 283-308.
Pordié, L. (2008). Tibetan medicine today: neo-traditionalism as an analytical lens and a political tool, 3-32.