School of Education and Social Work, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Med Anthropol. 2012;31(6):514-30. doi: 10.1080/01459740.2011.636781.
When mental illness and related conditions strike among the Quechua-speaking peasant population of southern Peru, they open wide the question of who is best placed to offer the healing that families seek for their afflicted relative. Biomedical doctors and the traditional healers known as yachaqs are the two most commonly consulted sources of help. Yet most families show different patterns of persistence with each; they frequently give up on biomedical assistance after the initial intervention but continue to consult a succession of yachaqs over considerable periods of time, even if the former has had some limited success and the latter virtually none. I draw on ethnographic fieldwork to show that explanations based on inaccessibility, cultural incongruence between patient and clinician, or stigma are ultimately inadequate; rather, it is necessary to delve into fundamental differences in how the two fields of healing are conceptualized by those negotiating them.
当精神疾病和相关疾病在秘鲁南部讲克丘亚语的农民群体中出现时,人们就会提出这样一个问题:谁最适合为患病的亲属提供治疗。生物医学医生和被称为 yachaqs 的传统治疗师是最常被寻求帮助的两个来源。然而,大多数家庭对这两者的坚持程度不同;他们在最初的干预后经常放弃生物医学治疗,但会在相当长的一段时间内继续咨询一系列的 yachaqs,即使前者有一定的有限的成功,而后者几乎没有。我通过民族志实地调查表明,基于不可及性、医患之间的文化不和谐或污名化的解释最终是不够的;相反,有必要深入探讨在协商治疗过程中,这两个治疗领域被双方如何概念化的根本差异。