GRSJ224/health

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE WORLD OF HEALTH

– There is a paradox regarding the social implications of health and wellness. Typically, the idea of health is very culturally related .That being, how you define illness or what are the factors in which constitute health, can be highly dependent in the society you live in or the the traditional and cultural frameworks around you. So, then, you may define it based on how your culture, society and traditions defines it. What you have to come to know and believe through the norms around you. In some cultures, health may be primarily physical, in others, a combination of physical and mental, and yet in other cultures, it is the holistic idea of health and wellness and its opposite, illness and disease, that defines the perception of health. Indeed, technology, namely the Internet, has changed the manner in which people share what they consider to be illness. Since each individual is unique, there are unique issues involving wellness, pain, health, and the manner in which these issues refer to something physical or an injury, a disability, or even mood. Key findings in most research indicate that there are social constructions of illness that cause the individual to shape their personal identity, while some see the Westernization of germ theory (illness is a disease or disease organism) as defining illness . Essentially, it is a social constructionist theory that tends to define the difference between illness and wellness, finding that some illnesses have cultural meaning, but all illnesses are socially constructed at the experiential level, based on how individuals come to understand and live with their illness.

The meaning behind Social Construction and Health

Social Constructionism[[1]] – The key component to understanding how illness is perceived culturally can be seen in the ideas surrounding social constructivism theory. This theory tends to try to make sense of the world through looking at individual cultural norms and behaviors. This may include how individuals interact, what overt and covert signals they send to each other, how they cooperate or disagree, where power is developed, and how the individual sees others. Each individual person then “constructs” their own unique experience based on their learned and accepted behaviors (norms), and ways to frame their place within that world . The emphasis for social constructivism lies in how that individual’s meaning is constructed, which then expands to other individuals and becomes a cultural paradigm. When speaking about illness in this perspective, one looks at a number of sociological variables which may have a relationship to that society’s previous values (blindness, deafness, etc.), or the manner in which the sociological maturity of that society changes both the way it views illness or health, and thus transmits those messages to the individual.

How does culture define it

Culture and Illness- Health and illness are not easy to define. The actual perception of health is not only defined by the dominant medical paradigm of the particular society, but also by the patient within the social and cultural nature of their perceptions . Illness tends to be defined by the manner in which disease is experienced. If the individual and their culture define something as illness, then it has a meaning that others can understand; even though there are differing degrees depending on the illness involved . The idea of sickness can be a part of disease that lies within the social norms of that society, but it is the personal beliefs of health (mental or physical) and how that individual and their culture perceive sickness that form the subjective reality for that group .

The Battle of the Subjective and the Objective

Objective Norms/Subjective Assertions of Illness – Subjective and Objective determinations of illness are also culturally based, often dealing with such issues as age, type of illness, religious or spiritual belief systems, or quality of life issues . There is no central determination of these variables, as they vary from individual to individual and culture to culture. For instance, in Asia and many Latin cultures, growing older and the required care of the aged is seen as a societal responsibility and duty . In other cultures, there is a debate about quality of life issues determining the extent of that individual’s illness, while in some societies there is a great distinction between mental and physical illness. In the Western Model of Illness, germ theory and causation still tend to prevail, although more recently the idea of looking at the holistic view of the patient is gaining popularity . In Eastern cultures, mental and physical balance defines wellness/ illness, although these may be culturally determined and subjective as well.

Social Construction of Illness. How culture influences health beliefs. – Within the field of medical sociology, the paradigm of social construction of illness is one of the most challenging topics. The complexity arises because some illnesses have certain cultural meanings that have very little to do with the actual physiological issues of the illness . Indeed, the conception of illness tends to be constructed in the way individuals handle their sickness, how others treat them, how society perceives that illness, and what cultural issues (e.g. HIV in Eastern Europe versus HIV in the United States) impact funding and treatment protocols. The very idea of treatment is also constructed differently between societies (e.g. Chinese acupuncture versus a “pill”) and is tied up with the manner in which the individual culture perceives the social implications of that disease or condition.

Can we fix it

Future Implications – The issue of globalization makes this an issue of paramount importance for many fields. Global travel has made pandemics more likely, and global commerce increases the need for a more generalized pattern of treatment protocols, research and development, and sociological attitudes. Illness has also become global through social networks, Internet support groups, and new ways to not only share information, but to provide support and a more constructed base of future research direction. The very nature of a constructivist approach means that individuals glean meaning from experience and ideas. This is seminal when dealing with illness and health, and has a wide and important range of the future of development of cures, pharmaceutical and governmental focus on illness and wellness, and the nature of educating a global culture.

DISCUSSION

REFERENCES

Andrews, T. (2012) What is Social Constructivism? Grounded Theory Review. 1 (11). Retrieved from: http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2012/06/01/what-is-social-constructionism/

Angel, R., et al. (2014): Latinos in an Aging America: Social, Psychological and Economic Perspectives. New York: Routledge: Available as a google-ebook

Angel, R.;Thoits, P. (1987). The impact of culture on the cognitive structure of illness. Culture, Medicine, and Society. 11 (4): 465-94. Available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00048494

Benotsch, E., et al. (2004). A Comparison of HIV/AIDS knowledge and attitudes of STD clinic clients in St. Petersburg, Russia and Milwaukee, WI. Journal of Community Health. 29 (6): 451-65. Available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10900-004-3394-4

Bok, S. (2004). Rethinking the WHO Definition of Health. Harvard School of Health Working Papers. 14 (7): Available at: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/population-development/files/2012/10/Working_Paper_Series.table_.1990to2009.doc

Bynum, W., (2008). A History of Medicine: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Available as a google-e-book

Cameron, L., Leventhal, H. (2003). The Self-regulation of Health and Illness Behavior. New York: Routledge. Available as a google e-book.

Chan, A. (2005). Aging in Southeast and East Asia: Issues and Policy Directions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology. 20 (4): 239-84; Available from: http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/23552400/aging-southeast-east-asia-issues-policy-directions

Conrad, P., Barker, K. (2010). The Social Construction of Illness: Key Insights and Policy Implications. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 51: 1 (567-79). Retrieved from: http://hsb.sagepub.com/content/51/1_suppl/S67.full?patientinform-links=yes&legid=sphsb;51/1_suppl/S67

Conrad, P., Stults, C. (2010). Internet and the Illness Experience, in Bird, C., et al., The Handbook of Medical Sociology, 6th ed., pp. 179-9, Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Available as a google book.

EuromedInfo, (2011). How culture influences health beliefs. Retrieved from: http://www.euromedinfo.eu/how-culture-influences-health-beliefs.html/

Frank, A. (2004). The Renewal of Generosity: Illness, Medicine and How to Live. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1-4). Available as a google ebook.

Kleinman, A., et al. (1978). Culture, Illness and Care: Clinical Lessons from Anthropologic and Cross-Cultural Research. The Annals of Internal Medicine. 88 (2): 251-258. See: http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=691789

Kim, E. (August 2012). What’s the Difference Between Eastern and Western Medicine. Mind, Body, Green. Retrieved from: http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-5860/Whats-the-Difference-Between-Eastern-Western-Medicine.html

O’Neill, D. (July 2006). Explanations of Illness. Available at: http://anthro.palomar.edu/medical/med_1.htm

Ruggeri, M., et al. (2001). Subjective and Objective Dimensions of Quality of Life. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 128-1: 268-75. Retrieved from: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/178/3/268.long

Tsuei, J. (1978). Eastern and Western Approaches to Medicine. Western Journal of Medicine. 12 (6): 551-57. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1238216/

Von Weizacker, C. (2014). Models of health and Illness, Good and Evil, Truth and Falseness. In Springer Briefs on Pioneers in Science and Practice. Pp. 74-89. Retrieved from: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-03671-7_6