Scan barcode
randybooks's review against another edition
3.0
“Medicine offers modern man the obstinate, yet reassuring face of his finitude; in it, death is endlessly repeated, but it is also exorcised; and although it ceaselessly reminds man of the limit that he bears within him, it also speaks to him of that technical world that is the armed, positive, full form of his finitude.”
Foucault offers an interesting perspective on how modern medicine was shaped into what it is today from origins that are now unrecognizable. The realizations and connections that arise from his arguments are a bit of a revelation and are satisfying to see come together. Unfortunately the book would have been just as interesting at half the length; the revelations are wrapped up in (pseudo?)intellectual philosopher-speak that is unnecessary.
Some takeaways I had: 1) doctors hold power in medicine, and therefore doctors dictate what medicine and disease actually are 2) hospitals are money-making enterprises and it follows that 3) clinical medicine benefits the rich more than anyone else; this is by design, patient care is not and has never been at the center of medicine 4) medicine is not necessarily science, so good basic science research is necessary for effective medical evolution.
Foucault offers an interesting perspective on how modern medicine was shaped into what it is today from origins that are now unrecognizable. The realizations and connections that arise from his arguments are a bit of a revelation and are satisfying to see come together. Unfortunately the book would have been just as interesting at half the length; the revelations are wrapped up in (pseudo?)intellectual philosopher-speak that is unnecessary.
Some takeaways I had: 1) doctors hold power in medicine, and therefore doctors dictate what medicine and disease actually are 2) hospitals are money-making enterprises and it follows that 3) clinical medicine benefits the rich more than anyone else; this is by design, patient care is not and has never been at the center of medicine 4) medicine is not necessarily science, so good basic science research is necessary for effective medical evolution.
charliebenwah's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
3.5
I think that this was interesting and educational, but like all of Foucault- was incredibly dense.
dominic_piacentini's review against another edition
challenging
informative
slow-paced
3.25
"Medicine must no longer be confined to a body of techniques for curing ills and of the knowledge that they require; it will also embrace a knowledge of 'healthy man,' that is, a study of 'non-sick man' and a definition of the 'model man.'" Foucault argues that medicine transformed in the latter half of the 18th Century so that its purpose was no longer to treat individual patients for individual ailments but instead to create a centralized, observational, and clinical approach that could create a healthy, non-sick, and therefore productive population. That is to say, medicine for the State rather than medicine for the people.
To completely disassociate, this week I read about the origins of the clinical gaze and positivistic medicine during the latter half of the 18th Century and the French Revolution. Wahoo! The book moves through the centralization of medical expertise and training into the State — to limit the propagation of hacks and to develop a "collective consciousness" of medical knowledge and response based on accumulated observations — while also critiquing the hospital and clinical model for exposing often impoverished families to greater vulnerability as the doctor and patient are excised from the community and household.
A lot of interesting stuff here, though mostly in the opening chapters. This was only Foucault's second book, and you can see the emergence of later topics like surveillance, the panopticon, governmentality, bio-politics, etc. Though they're somewhat less formed here and less clear. I don't know if the second half of the book lost me because of the content shift to semiotics (YUCK!) or because of my post-election fugue state (also YUCK!).
To completely disassociate, this week I read about the origins of the clinical gaze and positivistic medicine during the latter half of the 18th Century and the French Revolution. Wahoo! The book moves through the centralization of medical expertise and training into the State — to limit the propagation of hacks and to develop a "collective consciousness" of medical knowledge and response based on accumulated observations — while also critiquing the hospital and clinical model for exposing often impoverished families to greater vulnerability as the doctor and patient are excised from the community and household.
A lot of interesting stuff here, though mostly in the opening chapters. This was only Foucault's second book, and you can see the emergence of later topics like surveillance, the panopticon, governmentality, bio-politics, etc. Though they're somewhat less formed here and less clear. I don't know if the second half of the book lost me because of the content shift to semiotics (YUCK!) or because of my post-election fugue state (also YUCK!).
indreamsbeginresponsibilities's review against another edition
4.0
Needs to make it about the Marquis de Sade. He just can’t help himself.
sh00's review against another edition
2.0
Как говорит автор - это эссе о методе в плохо структурированной области. Неделя у меня странная - постоянно откуда-то лезут разговоры о методологии, а я, вообще-то, не хотел о ней разговаривать, а хотел найти и прочитать свежепереведённую Сонтаг - как раз о болезнях. А пока она не отыщется - немного освежить понимание вопроса - так уж вышло, что Фуко много писал о здоровье, но всё это ужасно обрывочно, неполно и редко когда последовательно. Последовательность всегда приходилось достраивать самому. Здесь есть пара забавных моментов - о языке медицины (как-нибудь в контексте этого я пошучу о почерке врачей, мол, от цехового языка, понятного только "своим", почти ушли, но зато пришли к цеховым загогулинам) и о неких задатках широко известной круговой поруки.
Очень специфически, чистый структурализм, не могу просто так рекомендовать.
Очень специфически, чистый структурализм, не могу просто так рекомендовать.
muddd's review against another edition
I got about halfway through the book over about 3 weeks. I found extremely difficult to understand on my own; it seems more fitting for the book to be taught over a university semester than read for one's enjoyment.
What I did manage to understand was extremely interesting. I simply do not wish to continue.
What I did manage to understand was extremely interesting. I simply do not wish to continue.
tyler611's review against another edition
3.0
This is one of those books in which it feels like the author is intentionally obscure -- almost in a self-aggrandizing way. To use one of Foucault's favorite (or at least most frequent) criticisms against others (in this text), this book is needlessly prolix; he throws that word around like it's going out of style. Oh, wait.
In it, Foucault examines the emergence of the clinic as a teaching hospital as opposed to a hospital intended solely to cure the sick. If you're going to tackle this work, you're going to need a decent amount of outside reading, knowledge of obscure 17th to 19th century medical practices, a decent latin dictionary, and a rudimentary working knowledge of French (occasionally, when a word in English can have more than one French word that it is translated from, the translator will put the English word, and the original French word in order to clarify... it's helpful to know the meaning of the original French word). If you can't do all that, at least be a Google master.
Plan to spend at least a little time looking up Bichat, Pinel, Sauvages, and a host of other medical figures in order to understand what's happening in this book and why he references these figures.
Real genius would have been to write this book in a less pompous, more straightforward way.
This book isn't a skip in the park. You have been warned.
In it, Foucault examines the emergence of the clinic as a teaching hospital as opposed to a hospital intended solely to cure the sick. If you're going to tackle this work, you're going to need a decent amount of outside reading, knowledge of obscure 17th to 19th century medical practices, a decent latin dictionary, and a rudimentary working knowledge of French (occasionally, when a word in English can have more than one French word that it is translated from, the translator will put the English word, and the original French word in order to clarify... it's helpful to know the meaning of the original French word). If you can't do all that, at least be a Google master.
Plan to spend at least a little time looking up Bichat, Pinel, Sauvages, and a host of other medical figures in order to understand what's happening in this book and why he references these figures.
Real genius would have been to write this book in a less pompous, more straightforward way.
This book isn't a skip in the park. You have been warned.