Global Journal of Human Social Science, G: Linguistics and Education, Volume 22 Issue 9

In the examination of different cultures, not only what is considered an illness or not, such as the importance attributed to specific parts of the body, is diverse. Adam and Herzlich (2001) reveal that in some cultures, for instance, intestinal worms attacked by Western medicine are not considered malefic, but are considered part of the digestive system. In another example, the authors reveal that, while in Western societies the brain and heart are given much importance, in Japan, the stomach is the central organ, the one that merits the most attention. So it is the belonging to a culture, the authors highlight, that will furnish individuals with the limits within which the interpretations regarding bodily phenomena operate. This perspective relativises the biomedical interpretation model for the health and illness process, whose emphasis is placed on the universal and objective, anatomophysiological character. At the same time, it widens the understanding of this process that is not restricted to the biological, necessarily demanding the articulation with the sociocultural, economic and political aspects manifested there. This is a comprehension of the specific meanings that the biological phenomena take up in a given culture and society, in view of the fact that the records of normality and of abnormality are determined grounded on socially valid values. As debated by Canguilhem (2006), there is nothing in the biological that defines the exact exit point or moment for normality, other than a value. It is the subject’s experience, in his or her relation with the environment, that informs the doctor about the state of health and illness in which the individual is to be found. Man is a relational and symbolic being. For biomedicine, the sick person is circumscribed within a set of organs and systems. The human sciences resite humans to the body, learning the meanings of experiences lived and expressed differently according to gender, social class, ethnicity, religion, among them other social determinants. As pointed out by Adam and Herzlich (2001), health professionals recognise the existence of different interpretations of the health-illness process. But these are seen as a simple translation of a fixed, objective reality. Differently from this conception, the human sciences conceive health and illness as social realities, historically constituted. Culture is not just a way of representing health and illness; it is the very constitution that models it, furnishing its meanings, its outlines, the resources deployed, also regarding the support obtained, i.e., the social networks (friends, neighbours, relatives etc.) which individuals rely on in order to speak of their illness, diffusing the meanings shared there and, thus, becoming someone able to get help. The reference to class is specifically important in this issue. As Adam and Herzlich (2001) demonstrate, it is chiefly the upper classes who most resort to a doctor in situations of preventive care. The reasons for that revolve around the language common to both parties, the shared meanings in the explanation of the illness, also given by the proximity regarding formal education. II. F inal R emarks In the terms that establish the relations between health, body, culture and society, in the context of Western contemporary societies, Adam and Herzlich (2001) show, in a study about the representations of health and illness, how individuals, as they speak about health and illness, do not refer to the body, but, instead, speak of the relation that they establish with the social. Illness, from this perspective, implies a conflicting relation with the social. To speak of health and illness is to speak of the relation that the individual establishes with society’s social order, within which he or she find themselves. The present text sought to reflect about the articulation between the dimensions of the body, health, the individual and society, understanding that it is necessary to consider the diversities and inequalities rendered evident by social markers, among them class, gender, ethnicity/race and place of abode, which allow for the understanding of discourses about and representations of care, being ill or being healthy, as well as for the comprehension of the constraints and (im)possibility of access to health services, inside the space and time where individuals are situated in different ways. R eferences R éférences R eferencias 1. Adam, P and Herzlich, C. Sociologia da doença e da medicina. Bauru: Edusc, 2001. 2. Breton, D. L. Sociologia do corpo. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes, 2006 3. ___________Adeus ao corpo. Campinas, SP: Papirus, 2003. 4. Camargo Júnior, KR. Bomedicina, saber e ciência. São Paulo: HUCITEC, 2003. 5. Canguilhem, G. O normal e o patológico. Rio de janeiro: Forense editora, 2006. 6. Donnangelo MC, Pereira L. Saúde e sociedade. São Paulo: Duas Cidades; 1976 7. Dumont, L. O individualismo: uma perspectiva antropológica da ideologia moderna Trad. Álvaro Cabral. Rio de Janeiro, Rocco, 1983. 8. Durkheim, E. As formas elementares da vida religiosa: o sistema totêmico na Australia Trad. Joaquim Pereira Neto. São Paulo, Paulinas, [1912] 1989. 9. Foucault, M. História da sexualidade 1: a vontade de saber, São Paulo: Graal, 2006. 10. __________ O nascimento da clínica. Rio de Janeiro: Forense Universitária, 1963. © 2022 Global Journals Volume XXII Issue IX Version I 3 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2022 G Body, Health and Society: Socioanthropological Considerations