The YouTube clip shown above is a part of a four video series about the philosophy of Ayurveda taught by Dr. Mamta Landerman. This video has been chosen for analysis to provide a narrative from the perspective of the Ayurvedic practitioner, first-hand. The ethnography by Jean Langford sent out a slightly ethnocentric vibe which seemed fairly apparent from the beginning of her article, stating her skepticism early on and offering a critical tone about the practices of Dr. Mistry, and perhaps even Ayurvedic medicine itself. Langford provided bits and pieces of Dr. Mistry’s dialogue, which could have possibly been manipulated in her writing style to give the reader a particular impression that could further support the author’s argument. The reason for showing this clip is because there is no middle man to report the facts, so it’s a very neutral ground. Another reason is because these videos are filmed at a school, Kerala Ayurveda Academy. I think it’s important to keep in mind that Dr. Mistry was described to have not graduated with a degree in Ayurveda, yet somehow he has managed to provide so much care and treatment to hundreds and hundreds of patients per day, for only five minutes each. To be able to understand the ideologies behind how the practice of a labeled “quack” succeeds, we must also compare and contrast it to what’s being taught at a school.
One very noticeable thing shown in the video as opposed to the way Ayurveda is described in the article Medical Mimesis is the fact “Philosophy of Ayurveda” manages to connect this form of medicine to realism rather than an acceptance of magic. Langford mentions that “the study of Ayurveda became a site for the consolidation of modern science against superstition,” however, she also mentions that Dr. Mistry was “obviously aware of the magical aura of pulse diagnosis” (33). The video above talks about the bridge between Ayurveda and the body/mind/spirit by attacking the cause using natural remedies. Dr. Mistry is unable to explain the processes behind the diagnoses of his patients, which makes one wonder if this could be from the lack of education he received at an institution, yet be able to supplement his “quackery” through years of experience to be able to actually treat his patients at his clinic and eventually become a reputable practitioner of Ayurveda. Dr. Mamta Landerman, in all her four videos dives into great detail how there are different causes of a single disease and multiple symptoms, and she gives a very holistic lesson of this form of medicine – describing it as “the wisdom of life of everything that travels in life, how to live well, how to live long, how to come back on track.” One common argument that both Dr. Mistry and Dr. Mamta Landerman share is that there is a whole lot of psychological aspects of the patient that will help the patient recover or be fully treated. Dr. Landerman says that “it’s much more effective to treat their mental attitudes than it is just treating their physical,” whereas Harvard studies show that “when a patient is just being treated physically, they may or may not get better.” This closely relates to the same viewpoint shared by Dr. Mistry when Langford transcribes him saying “80 percent of illness is psychological” (40). Perhaps Dr. Mamta Landerman, whose approach to Ayurveda is much more holistic, stresses less on the power of the mind than Dr. Mistry does, because Dr. Mistry’s belief in the mind and possible understanding of placebo effects is just enough for him to be able to treat patients successfully. Dr. Landerman might be conjoining psychology with additional sects of Ayurveda to let her students understand the meaning and reasoning behind diagnoses and treatments to give students a feeling of confidence, something that Dr. Mistry has plenty of.
And exactly are some of the things that Dr. Mamta is emphasizing along with the power of the mind? Physiology. As you watch the end of the video and the beginning of the second video, you’ll see she goes on to talk about an anti-oxidant called curcumin which “goes through the cell walls and into the nucleus of the cell.” This is an interesting point made because you normally don’t hear about traditional medicine being linked in a biomedical way to the physiological and scientific body. The way Dr. Landerman teaches the foundations of Ayurveda differs a lot from the way it is presented by Dr. Mistry. The question of Ayurveda seen as a science is awoken by the lecture of Dr. Landerman. Vincanne Adams says “the meanings of ‘science’ … [varies] on the basis of not only method and content, but also on the basis of the transcultural, political, and historical conditions that give rise to the use of the term and the efforts to translate it in locations that have not parsed their knowledge in the same ways as those places from which ‘western science’ is now deployed” (570). The origin of Ayurveda is from India, yet Dr. Landerman is giving a lecture in English, and occasionally mentioning American culture-specific items like a McDonald’s quarter-pounder and such. With the idea of Ayurveda spreading to other countries and becoming a more popular form of medicine and means of explaining physical and natural phenomena, it shouldn’t be surprising that Ayurveda has taken shape as a science.
Jean M. Langford, 1999. “Medical Mimesis: Healing Signs of a Cosmoplitan ‘Quack’.” American Ethnologist 26(1): 24-46.
Landerman, Mamta. "Philosophy of Ayurveda. (Kerala Ayurveda Academy)." YouTube. Web. 28 Jan. 2011.
Vincanne Adams. 2001. “The Sacred in the Scientific: Ambiguous Practice of Science in Tibetan Medicine.” Cultural Anthropology 16(4): 542-575.
No comments:
Post a Comment