![]() 3 Nevertheless, the ‘global’ is increasingly mobilised as though it carries both descriptive and analytic freight. It is difficult to see how these collectively constitute an emergent or innovative field of the ‘global history of medicine’ in which the term ‘global’ either delivers a new problematic or does serious analytic work. Although there have been a few edited volumes, as well as a few workshops and conferences organised around ‘the global’ in the history of medicine, these have, generally speaking, used ‘global’ as a straight swap for what we used to call ‘international’, ‘world’ or ‘colonial’. 2 On the other hand, even a cursory read of major medical history journals and monographs during this period suggests that this proliferation of the ‘global’ in our writing can be explained only in part as a product of staying true to our historical subjects’ categories. Over the past decade and a half, the field of ‘international health’ has gradually reinvented itself as ‘global health’ and our descriptive language needs to address this. ![]() 1 On the one hand, this ‘globalisation’ of language might not require comment. The history of medicine has gone ‘global.’ Alongside an increasing visibility of the term in popular and expert discourse, ‘global’ has emerged as the preferred descriptor within the historiography of medicine for phenomena that either occur across national borders, or simply take place outside our own.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |