'Diseases are cultural constructs.' Discuss with reference to Mesopotamia.

Authors Avatar

History and Philosophy of Science                Paper 7

‘Diseases are cultural constructs.’ Discuss with reference to Mesopotamia.

A discussion about disease invariably turns into discourse about health, which is generally defined in terms of the ‘scientific’ theories of contemporary cultures. Hence, notions about ‘health’ and ‘disease’ tend to be cultural constructs, dependent on the collective attitudes of a certain society within a certain period of history. As cultures evolve over time, influenced by political, economic and social factors, ideas about ‘health’ and ‘disease’ also change. The existing ideas themselves influence ideas about ‘the body’, and vice versa; both of which have an influence on the way disease is treated. Galenic notions of disease, for example, regard an imbalance of bodily ‘humours’ as the origin of illness. Treatment of such illness requires a restoration of the balance. In contrast, Mesopotamians attributed illness (or any misfortune, in fact) to the wrath of a god; in this case, rituals would be performed to appease the said god, or solicit the assistance of a personal god. In this essay, I intend to explore the Mesopotamian notions of ‘disease’, how they changed, and their influences with respect to social and cultural factors.

        It is a common notion that ‘disease’ is a condition that is deviant from the social and cultural norm of ‘health’; in effect, health and illness are seen as mutually exclusive opposites in the human state of being. Mesopotamians also believed in this dichotomy: perfect health constituted the protection of a personal god, good omens within the local environment, and avoidance of the wrath of any “witchcraft, spells, magic, or other evil incantations of men” (Kinnier Wilson, 1967b). A reversal of any of these conditions was believed to incur illness and disease. Divinity played a large role in Mesopotamian medicine and healthcare simply because divinity was a significant part of all aspects of Mesopotamian culture. During difficult times, such as war or famine, Mesopotamian people would seek divine intervention to provide help. Each person believed they had a personal god, who was rarely in possession of vigorous ‘magical’ powers, but acted as a messenger and protector in communication between the individual and a higher power. Each aspect of Mesopotamian culture had a representative god, to whom pleas and enquiries were directed. In fact, one can gauge the significance of any aspect of Mesopotamian life according to the importance placed upon each divine patron. For example, Ea, the patron of wisdom - who had influence over all the crafts, including ‘magic’ and ‘medical science’ - and Gula, Sumerian goddess of healing, feature frequently in the archaeological evidence uncovered from the Ancient Mesopotamian period. This implies that Mesopotamians considered ‘magic’, ‘medical science’ and healing as major elements of their lifestyle and culture. In contrast, the role of the asû (a type of medical practitioner) is considered neither lucrative nor endowed with any special status by the Middle Babylonian period, because it lacks a special divine patron for its profession (Oppenheim, 1977). Evidently, Mesopotamian society did not deem the asû as important enough to Mesopotamian culture for such an honour to be bestowed. Also, since the Old Babylonian period, asûs had traditionally been associated with the symptomatic relief of illness and disease, which was generally a more basic role than the āšipu, who employed the use of incantation, divination and conjuration along with the application of medicine in the restoration of health.  As divinity was an important part of society, and the āšipu was a necessary link between the divine patron and health, āšipus had a higher status, with more lucrative careers.  This highlights culture-conditioned behaviour towards medical practitioners in any civilisation.

Join now!

         Our ideas of the ‘magical’ and ‘rational’ elements to Mesopotamian health and disease are also cultural constructs; they are modern categories which western presumptions often – ignorantly – distinguish ‘scientific’ from ‘non-scientific’ attitudes (Heessel, 2004). While, Kinnier Wilson describes the Mesopotamian line between disease and health as ‘wrong’ (Kinner Wilson, 1967a), the emphasis should not be on where Mesopotamians demarcated the difference between health and disease, but on why the demarcation existed where it did. Our notion of disease as a localized pathology cannot be compared with the Mesopotamian notion of disease as ‘magical’ in origin. In fact, we should not even ...

This is a preview of the whole essay