Vaughan M
Nuffield College, Oxford, UK
Soc Hist Med. 1994 Aug;7(2):283-95. doi: 10.1093/shm/7.2.283.
Metaphors of disease, illness and healing, though they operate in different ways in different cultures and historical periods, appear to have a remarkably common currency. This fact presents both problems and opportunities for the medical anthropologist and historian, and raises important issues of interpretation for both disciplines. The problem of defining the field of analysis in this wide-ranging world of health and sickness has led to a variety of solutions. Some have begun with a biological definition of illness; others have started with a cultural definition. No one definition will be appropriate for all purposes and a plurality of approaches is to be welcomed. However, there is a tendency evident in the literature on medicine and healing in Africa which may lead to the drawing of misleading comparisons between African healing practices and scientific medicine. Whilst the former are described in all their cultural complexity, the latter is often described by reference, not to practice, but to this system's theory of itself. Since elements of both the theory and the practices of scientific medicine now form part of many African healing practices, this tendency may obscure the dynamic reality of the world of healing and curing in contemporary Africa.
疾病、病患与治愈的隐喻，尽管在不同文化和历史时期以不同方式发挥作用，但似乎有着显著的共通之处。这一事实给医学人类学家和历史学家带来了问题与机遇，并为这两个学科引发了重要的解释问题。在这个涵盖广泛的健康与疾病领域中界定分析范畴的问题，催生了多种解决方案。一些人从疾病的生物学定义入手；另一些人则从文化定义开始。没有一种定义能适用于所有目的，多种方法应受到欢迎。然而，在关于非洲医学与治愈的文献中，有一种明显的倾向，这可能导致在非洲治愈实践与科学医学之间进行误导性的比较。虽然前者在其所有文化复杂性中得到描述，但后者往往不是参照实践，而是参照该体系自身的理论来描述。由于科学医学的理论和实践要素如今都已成为许多非洲治愈实践的一部分，这种倾向可能会掩盖当代非洲治愈与治疗世界的动态现实。
