Schrempf Mona
University of Westminster.
Asian Med (Leiden). 2015;10(1-2):273-315. doi: 10.1163/15734218-12341360.
Tibetan medicines are key material objects for medical treatment and have become part of a global trend of 'pharmaceuticalisation', playing increasingly important political and socio-economic roles in an 'alternative modernity'. As I argue in this paper, they also have become key 'sites of contestation' between different epistemic values and styles of practice related to efficacy and safety that are reproduced in and through specific formulation regimes. Based on my multisited ethnography of production, prescription, and use practices of Tibetan medicines in China and Europe, this paper conceptualises three distinct formulation regimes, offering a heuristic model for transnational comparison-a classical, an industrialised or reformulated, and a polyherbal regime. The first two are the major orientations while the polyherbal is a conjoint hybrid with either the classical or the industrialised formulation regime. Globalised national drug safety regulations legalise and confer legitimacy to industrialised Tibetan formulas that follow biomedically defined efficacy, safety, and disease categories, while classical formulas produced by private physicians or small-scale cottage pharmacies are increasingly marginalised as producing 'unsafe' and at times illegal medicines, and need to find new ways for adapting and circulating their formulas.
藏药是医疗的关键物质对象,并已成为“医药化”全球趋势的一部分,在“另类现代性”中发挥着越来越重要的政治和社会经济作用。正如我在本文中所论证的,它们也已成为不同认知价值观和与疗效及安全性相关的实践方式之间关键的“争议场所”,这些价值观和实践方式在特定的配方体系中得以重现并通过该体系得以传播。基于我对中国和欧洲藏药生产、配方及使用实践的多地点民族志研究,本文概念化了三种不同的配方体系,提供了一个用于跨国比较的启发式模型——一种经典配方体系、一种工业化或重新配方的体系以及一种多草药配方体系。前两种是主要方向,而多草药配方体系是与经典或工业化配方体系相结合的混合体。全球化的国家药品安全法规使遵循生物医学定义的疗效、安全性和疾病分类的工业化藏药配方合法化并赋予其合法性,而由私人医生或小规模家庭药房生产的经典配方则因生产“不安全”且有时非法的药品而日益被边缘化,需要寻找新的方式来调整和传播其配方。