Asia in Europe, Europe in Asia

9. British Colonial Rhetoric on ‘Modern Medicine’ and ‘Health at Home’: Realities of Health Conditions in 19th Century Britain

184 Vineeta Sinha 9 British Colonial Rhetoric on ‘Modern Medicine’ and ‘Health at Home’: Realities of Health Conditions in 19th Century Britain Vineeta Sinha Introduction The field of colonialism, health and medicine has been extensively and creatively theorized by scholars located in a range of disciplines and the emergent literature on the subject is voluminous, varied and valuable. Any analysis of the relationship between colonialism and health requires a recognition of the complexity and multidimensionality of this encounter. So far a variety of themes within this domain have engaged the theoretical and practical interests of scholars. Some examples include the impact of colonialism on indigenous systems of healing (Levine 1998, Marks 1997), on the use of ‘modern medicine’1 to dominate and thus govern colonized populations, i.e., with emergent issues of power and social control (Haynes 1999, Lorcin 1999), utilization of modern medicine by British Colonial Rhetoric on ‘Modern Medicine’ 185 ‘natives’ (Leng 1982) and even the benefits of Western medicine for maintaining good health of ‘natives’ and lessons to be learnt from Eastern experiences (Given 1929). Despite the variety of themes addressed, a common thread runs through these accounts and discussions: that is, a sustained and singular focus on the colonies and the colonized populations, and the subject matter so defined is the state of health and healing in non-Western, colonized contexts (Denoon 1989, Manderson 1987, Patterson 1981, Yeoh 1991). I propose that this mode of approaching the field of colonialism and health is limited in being one-sided, in bracketing off attention to actual health conditions and healing strategies current in colonizing societies at specific points in colonial history. This chapter attempts to redress this imbalance by explicitly focusing on one colonizing context, and detailing the health scene in nineteenth-century Britain and the nature and impact of modern medicine in managing day-to-day health issues at ‘home’. By now historical accounts of medicine and health care in Britain are plentiful (Lane 2001, Porter 1987, Wohl 1983). Much of the more insightful work has emerged under the banner of ‘social history of medicine’2 in currency for the last 3 decades (Berridge 1990). Proponents of this approach have rightly critiqued the earlier technical and narrow accounts of the history of medicine, divorced from their social, economic and political dimensions. These studies have thus provided the much-needed context for understanding the development of the practice of medicine. However, it is interesting that this material, which spans the period of British colonization, pays minimal or no attention to the role of colonial/imperial activities in shaping health directions, discourses, policies and practices in Britain itself. As I see it, practitioners located within these two fields of ‘colonialism and health’ and the ‘social history of medicine’ do not engage each other either on empirical or theoretical platforms. In my assessment, it would indeed be instructive to connect the insights and theorizing from these two fields—a link that has so far not been made explicit. Such convergence I argue would produce a more rounded and comprehensive account of health, both at ‘home’ and in the colonies. The value of, and rationale for, making such a 186 Vineeta Sinha connection is detailed in the argument presented in the pages that follow. I begin with brief discussions of the notion of ‘difference’ and its status under hegemonic conditions, followed by a consideration of the ways in which health has been theorized as an issue in colonialist projects. The third and largest portion of the paper carries the following discussion: The rhetoric3 of British colonialism required and produced somewhat glowing images of ‘home’ that were defined in stark contrast to the inhospitable conditions in the colonies. In colonial health discussions, narratives of scientizing and civilizing ‘native’ populations were expressed through the assumed superior status of modern medicine rather than reflecting actual medical practices or sanitary conditions ‘back home’. I use specific historical data to gauge the extent to which these ‘differences’ between home and the overseas dominions can be sustained. Further, the nineteenth century has been viewed as the age of medical innovation and hence of the resultant ‘modern medicine’ as a harbinger of progress. How does this image actually compare with the prevailing state of health conditions and healing strategies in nineteenthcentury Britain? Identifying and recognizing differences The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries bear witness to increased contact between ‘non-Western’ societies and a rapidly expanding ‘West’,4...