Analysis of the Book "The Medicalization of Society" By Peter Conrad
The Main Author's Arguments
Peter Conrad, the author of the book "The Medicalization of Society," conducts a study of the most common problems of the modern society, which essence and nature have changed and obtained a medical character over the past 10-20 years. In other words, the author examines the social problems that have become the diagnoses at the beginning of the 21st century, though they were not related to medicine even a decade ago. At the very beginning of the book, Conrad emphasizes the investigated phenomenon, claiming that his analysis is connected only with the social connotations of all the problems that are addressed in the book. "I am interested in the social underpinning of this expansion of medical jurisdiction and the social implications of this development" (Conrad, 2007, p.4).
In addition, the first chapter of the book explores the concept of "medicalization" itself, determining its field of activity and main directions. The author refers to scientists from different fields, who discovered the concept of medicalization in the context of other problems of humankind. Conrad uses the statistical analysis to determine the popularity and development of the themes related to the medicalization. The book begins with the definition and formulation of the current issues. One of the highlights here is Conrad's statement, in which he explains that the key to the concept of "medicalization" is that it "describes the process" (Conrad, 2007, p 5.). "At the beginning in the 1970s," sociologists started the discussion of the issues related to "health of individuals, a variety of social, occupational, and ethnic groups, the general public, health care, development of medical technology", etc. (Conrad, 2007, p. 4). The reasons for this vary: it can be either the "rapidly changing demographics", or the "changing patterns of diseases and causes of death in developed countries", or the "increase in life expectancy" (Light, 2010, pp. 92-93). The wide recognition of the fact that modern medicine plays an important role in these processes is accompanied by discussions about the possible negative consequences of this trend. The conceptual basis for the development of these discussions was the concept of "medicalization", which became a part of the vocabulary of sociologists, historians, and other humanists more than forty years ago (Conrad, 2007, p. 4).
According to Conrad (2007), the first publication on the medicalization appeared in the 1960s, when some critically minded authors tried to explain the increased social and political role of medicines in society (p. 4). During the Vietnam War, some representatives of the humanities researchers tried to analyze the role of the medical terminology in the Conservative policy, in particular the use of medical language to describe various phenomena of urban youth culture, violence, sex, and drug use in the United States (Conrad, 2007, p. 117). Yet, the most decisive steps to introduce the importance of the issue of medicalization have been made in the 1970s. Since 1972, a small number of American sociologists were to explore the current social issues. The several important articles devoted to the way both medicine and psychiatry provided an answer to the various forms of socially unacceptable behavior were finally published (Conrad, 2007, p. 5). Subsequently, all these works have been combined into one trial, which began to gain momentum over time. The phenomena of "mental illness, suicide, pedophilia, and theft" came into the view of this study; moreover, sociologists dealing with medicalization the question of the "relationship between coercion and treatment within psychiatric practice" more particularly (Wells & Dolch, 2001, p. 238). The first critical point on this social phenomenon was formulated in the basis of the link of medicalization with the expansion of the powers of psychiatrists and their transformation into public order agents. Conrad points to the early definition of "medicalization", which does not imply any science or medicine, but is a process or a social strategy, which brings benefits to some people, though carries a threat to others (Conrad, 2007, p. 10).
Precisely, the author's main argument points out that medicine has become a major institution of social control, displacing more "traditional institutions", such as religion and law that, which has led to the medicalization of many aspects of everyday life in today's society (Conrad, 2007, p. 14). This argument implies the fact that the public is increasingly beginning to strive for the preservation of health, and it has become not an ordinary good, but the main goal of most people. Conrad shows that the medicalization of another type of deviant behavior results in individualization of social problems, but it does not indicate a rise of humanism in society. The so-called "medical labeling" of the various items of social control also leads to the experts' increased power and the depolitization of deviances (Conrad, 2007, p. 6).
Therefore, according to Conrad, the chief social audiences that define a certain type of child behavior as deviant are family and school (Conrad, 2007, p. 6). Once they reach a consensus in terms of identifying the cause of the deviation, the other agents of social control, i.e. neighbors, relatives, doctors, and representatives of the church engage in the process. The status of child deviation as a sort of medical problem is performed by means of diagnosis. The art of diagnosis is a "processing procedure of some uncertainty" (Light, 2010, p. 102). According to Conrad (2010), many American doctors in 1970 began to use medicines for getting some "certainty" (e.g. Ritalin) (pp. 9-10). If children changed their behavior to more socially acceptable after taking the drugs, they were diagnosed with "hyperactivity" (Conrad, 2007, p. 10). As a result, Conrad stresses that medicalization of deviation is a typical example of social construction of reality.
In addition, one of the most important author's arguments is the link between the process of medicalization of society and capitalism. In this regard, Conrad had few supporters, one of whom was Schneider, e.g. their consentient work called "Deviance and Medicalization: From Badness to Sickness" (Conrad, 2007, p. 6). In the United States, the establishment of the medical profession turned out to be an example of strengthening of social control over various forms of "moral corruption," which gradually gave them a "morally neutral" status (Light, 2010, p. 107). Thus, the author proposes to consider certain social phenomena as illustrative cases, in which various phenomena are the part of medicine. "Witchcraft, abortion, mental illness, alcoholism, drug addiction, child disobedience and child abuse, homosexuality, and immoral behavior" begin to acquire certain diagnoses, and then begin to respond to treatment (Light, 2010, p. 107).
In the second part of his book, which is devoted to the investigation of the cases, Peter Conrad examines the issues such as the aging of men and women and the accompanying phenomenon, as "the earlier studies have pointed to the medicalization of women’s bodies," and today, it is obvious that "aging men’s bodies becoming medicalized as well" (Conrad, 2007, p. 23). Conrad argues that such physiological malfunction as erectile dysfunction and other problems associated with the aging of body become a part of medicalization, as it is indicated by the advertising appeals that "consistently tell men to “see your doctor”" (Conrad, 2007, p. 23). The author discusses the three main cases of medicalization of masculinity: i.e. andropause, baldness, and erectile dysfunction. Conrad argues that the problems associated with old age and aging have long been a major part of the medicalization process. For a long time, the problem of masculinity and male identity were succumbed to propaganda in a form of advertising, which called to solve men's aging problems. The author examines the main cases of men's medicalization in order to compare women and men's vulnerability to this process. Previously, it was believed that such cases as childbirth, premenstrual syndrome, and menopause make women more vulnerable to medicalization (Conrad, 2007, p. 25). Conrad begins to study such disease as andropause, describing the importance of testosterone in male body in the context of the medicalization of masculinity. The author studies such concepts as "male menopause" and in the context of medicalization, determining the degree of justification for different treatment of these problems associated with testosterone.
The next case under consideration is baldness. This issue is very important in the list of male aging problems. The author describes the causes of baldness and the various methods of treatment, pointing out how the baldness has become a part of medicalization: "various elixirs and treatments have been introduced over the years, but in the past two decades new surgical and medical treatments have brought baldness further into the jurisdiction of medicine." (Conrad, 2007, p. 25). Finally, the last case of the medicalization of masculinity is associated with erectile dysfunction, or how it is called "sexual dysfunction." This case is the most common and problematic. The author cites various examples of the medicalization of the problem, such as prostate treatment and the creation of various pharmacological agents for Viagra type: "by looking at “treatments” for the aging male body (testosterone, Propecia/Rogaine/hair transplants, and Viagra), we can understand how it becomes socioculturally constructed" (Conrad, 2007, p. 26). Nevertheless, the "treatments" can only harm the very process of a natural aging, as "men experience and understand their bodies differently if the aging process is constructed as pathological" (Conrad, 2007, p. 26).
Research Methods
Conrad mainly uses the quantitative research methods, comparing several different points of view and providing information in the form of tables and statistics during the process of investigation. The author investigates the problem, collecting the data from the various sources of the past years in order to demonstrate the development of the phenomenon perspective. Undoubtedly, Conrad has used a variety of the research method when writing the "Medicalization of society." For instance, the author has to resort to the use of qualitative research method in order to create a sufficiently informative and qualitative research. The beginning of the book, which represents the result of quantitative analysis, transforms into the result of the meta-analysis, which is determined by the confluence of sociological research with other sciences. That is, Conrad integrates medicalization as a sociological problem in other various sciences. Due to the mixed type of research methods, the author manages to create an informative and high-quality work, which examines the question of the origin, development, and consequences of medicalization in detail.
Criticism of the Phenomenon. The Opponents and the Supporters of Medicalization
A sufficient number of sociologists and other researchers, whom Conrad mentions in his book, come out in support of the medicalization of society. Later, the author dwells on those who try to re-think the concept of medicalization and its problems. For example, Conrad cites the example of such researchers as a "Simon Williams and Michael Calnan (1996), who contended that most studies of medicalization viewed individuals or the lay public as largely passive or uncritical of medicine`s expansion" (Conrad, 2007, p. 11). Further, the author also writes that the majority of the critics regarding the medicalization are due to the fact that of society seems passive in the context of the medicalization: "While it remains questionable whether most studies of medicalization see the public as passive, it seems clear that culture and medicine may limit medicalization" (Conrad, 2007, p. 11). The sociologist argues that this criticism is not entirely appropriate or relevant in this book, as he foresees this problem in the seventh chapter. Conrad states that despite the fact that there is a sufficient number of people to develop critical thinking in society, medicalization is still gaining momentum and growing.
In addition, the author points to the criticism of such researchers as Dorothy H. Broom and Roslyn V. Woodward (1996), who argue about too prejudicial in respect of the medicalization of society in their articles. Broom and Woodward are the supporters of a viewpoint that implies understanding of medicalization from both the negative and the positive sides: "medicalization is bidirectional, in the sense that there can be both medicalization and demedicalization, but the trend in the past century has been toward the expansion of medical jurisdiction" (Conrad, 2007, p. 7). The author argues that similar views on the medicalization are not new and that there were those who considered medicalization as a dual phenomenon. In this case, the sociologist points out Catherine Kohler Riessman, who analyzed this phenomenon in the early 80s. She stated, "medicalization can be a “two-edged sword”" (Conrad, 2007, p. 11). The author has nothing against such criticism, but at the same time, he writes that Broom and Roslyn's approaches are inclined to the positive perception of medicalization.
At the same time, it is worth noting that Conrad mentions the certain prospects that have developed in the course of the development of medicalization. He claims that is necessary to address the "postmodern premises to be critical of the categorization of wide swatches of life into medical diagnoses or to adopt some relativist critique of medical viewpoints and cultural power" (Conrad. 2007, p. 13). The author mentions a study by Michel Foucault, who saw a number of positive aspects in the analysis of medicalization. "Foucault wrote about medicalization in one of his earlier works, Birth of the Clinic" (1966): the first perspective is epistemological in nature, as medicalization is compared with the development of new modes of production of knowledge about the people: individuals and populations (Conrad. 2007, p. 13). By the beginning of the 19th century, the development of clinical medical thinking on the basis of pathological anatomy made it possible to develop the first modern ideas of physical health and disease, while the introduction of an autopsy in the work of hospital doctors made the practice routine. Doctors gained an opportunity to expand the production of knowledge about the human body with the development of methods of clinical observation, and the introduction of systems of registration of the data in conjunction with statistical studies helped to assess the possibility of using quantitative parameters (Conrad, 2007, pp. 13-14).
Precisely, it is necessary take into account both negative and positive aspects of the problem of medicalization of society. However, it becomes clear that security and progress are just an illusion against a background of side effects of global medicalization. In other words, modern medicine is a source of many dangers, thus, it is harmful to health. There is a "social iatrogenesis" associated with general medicalization of life (Wells& Dolch, 2001, p. 244). Doctors, who have received a monopoly on treatment, have a complete control over the basic number of people and thus, gain a huge profit. Health care costs continue to rise, but it would be better to spend this money on other issues, e.g. fight against poverty, improvement of education level, and protection of the environment. Pharmaceutical companies continue to increasingly interfere in people's lives, and doctors use them to set the "Diagnostic imperialism" (Conrad, 2007, p. 149). Therefore, the progress of medicine in the field of life expectancy makes people the helpless patients with an innumerable quantity of various ailments.
In addition, the progress of the modern medicine has created a cultural iatrogenesis), which leads to the destruction of culture (Wells& Dolch, 2001, p. 244). Culture allows people to remain human throughout the history of humankind. A human has always had to put up with pain, disease, and death, and it was possible thanks to the cultural values and rituals. The modern medicine knows how to conquer pain, successfully fights against infectious and other diseases, and makes death a result of routine medical decision taken by doctors in intensive care units thanks to technology of artificial life support and resuscitation. Thus, it can be said that health is a matter of policy. The progress of modern medicine leads to the fact that more people become patients. The productive forces of society disappear, while the continued medicalization is accompanied by an increase of "the counter productivity" (Light, 2010, p. 133). People need to oppose this doctors' policy to their own political counter measures. It is crucial to introduce a public control over the professional medical "mafia". Moreover, it is necessary to rediscover the truth about health. Medicine seeks to transform health into a commodity in the industrial society. It should be remembered that health is the fruit of virtue. It is important to restore people's respect for their own nature, in which it is impossible to hide pain, sickness, and death.
Conclusions
The analysis of the book "Medicalization of the Society" by Peter Conrad makes it possible to state that the author is a great expert in the field of sociological and medical researchers. Over the years, Conrad examines the problem of medicalization of society, explaining it in the context of other sciences and social problems. The author resorts to both quantitative and qualitative research methods, thereby creating a wider field of research in order to ensure a maximum objectivity. Conrad mentions a number of other researchers who have studied this problem and points to the various criticisms of the basic concepts of medicalization. At the same time, the sociologist considers both positive and negative sides of medicalization of society, insisting that it still leads to the negative consequences because of its artificial nature. In general, the book is very informative and well structured. Thus, this book is the best material for investigation of the problem of medicalization of society.
References
Conrad, P. (2007). Medicalization of Society: On the Transformation of Human Conditions into Treatable Disorders. Baltimore, MD, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com
Light, D. W. (Ed.). (2010). Risks of Prescription Drugs. New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com
Wells, N. R., & Dolch, N. A. (2001). Medical Sociology — Issues for the New Millennium. Sociological Spectrum, 21(3), 237-245.
