• Journal of Science and Technology Studies
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.3-33
• /
• 2014

Over the last forty years, the dominant perspective of social science on medicine has been the medicalization theory. It indicates the social process of expanding power of medical professionals by (re)defining the problems which were treated as non-medical phenomena(e.g. homosexuality, alcoholism, obesity, etc.) into "diseases" and thus the spheres of medical intervention. Meanwhile, rapid technoscientific changes in the medical field owing to the diffusion of biological sciences and information technologies since the mid-1980s and the accompanying emergence of new social arrangements such as bioeconomy and biological citizenship have led to the rise of a new social scientific perspective called the biomedicalization theory. This paper attempts to compare the two theories and assess their merits and demerits as a basic work to deepen the understandings of sociology and STS on contemporary medicine. And it also attempts to analyze their relative relevance through the case of mental disorder. The analysis on the case of mental disorder clearly shows that the medicalization in that area seems to have continuously proceeded since the early 19th centiry to the present. Furthermore, it also seems true that the five central processes of biomedicalization(except for risk surveillance technologies of mental disorder) have been observed and realized since the late 20th century. These results indicate that although medicalization has consistently proceeded, it has not been limited to the quantitative expansion of the medical field but been extended to the qualitative transformation asserted by the biomedicalization theory. Therefore, while the concept of medicalization is valid and significant even today, we can recognize that the concept of biomedicalization allow us to capture the new phenomena which cannot be properly and sufficiently captured by that of medicalization.

• Journal of Science and Technology Studies
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.87-116
• /
• 2014

This article focuses on synthetic hormone consumption that illegal act of heterogeneous forms of pharmaceuticalization. Athletes are not unfamiliar with the use of synthetic hormones that contain anabolic steroids. Synthetic hormones are used to increase muscle mass and strength. This drug use practice cannot simply be viewed as illegal. Athletes accumulate knowledge on these hormones that conflicts with the knowledge proffered by physicians and they consume drugs responsibly. Physicians' knowledge of these hormones is limited to their use in the treatment of abnormalities. Athletes, however, are expanding the role of these hormones to include their potential for enhancement. Thereby, a new value is assigned to synthetic hormones, and an informal market is formed. Previous studies in the fields of biopolitics and biomedicalization have mainly focused on the formal connection between biomedical science and the institutional network. This article, therefore, analyzes the informal and the various aspects of biomedicalization.

• The Journal of Internal Korean Medicine
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.111-125
• /
• 2012

Objectives : One of the fundamental premises of medical anthropology is the interconnectedness of medicine and society. Recent ethnographies of medicine demonstrate that the interconnectedness of the social and the medical not just evokes relatedness of the two parties, but also emphasizes the agency of the constituents, mutually shaping and being shaped. Against this backdrop, this study attempts to anthropologically investigate Korean medicine in South Korea and traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in China. Methods : The findings are based on anthropological studies of East Asian medicine employing long-term fieldwork about Korean Medicine and Traditional Chinese Medicine. Results : TCM is characterized by standardization, hospitalization, and scientization, by which simplification, collectivization, and biomedicalization prevail in contemporary traditional medicine in China. In contrast, Korean medicine is characterized by diversity, care delivery by individual private clinics, and a considerable distance from biomedicine. To understand the divergence of the two East Asian medicines, one should consider the social contexts intervening into the medical contents, such as the role of the state and dominant discourses in given historical periods. Conclusions : Korean medicine in South Korea and TCM in China demonstrate well the hybridity of the social and the medical, suggesting that, for more comprehensive understanding of the medical, the social should be paid attention to.