{"title":"The Telegraphic Body: Dyspepsia, Modern Life, and ‘Gastric Time’ in Nineteenth-Century Medicine and Culture","authors":"Emilie Taylor-Pirie","doi":"10.1007/s10912-024-09884-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>From Italian physician Hieronymus Mercurialis’s contention that the stomach was ‘the king of the belly’, to its promotion by the end of the nineteenth century to the ‘monarch of humanity’ in patent medicine, to Byron Robinson’s discovery of the enteric nervous system in 1907 (a mesh of neural connectivity that led him to dub the gut ‘the second brain’), there has historically been a longstanding awareness of the expansive reach of the gut in the functions of the body. In the nineteenth century, the authority of the gut and its allyship with the brain became a focus for writers thinking about the intersections of illness and ‘modern life’. In medical texts, domestic health manuals, patent medicine, and fiction, the electric telegraph in particular became a way of envisaging what we would now call the ‘gut-brain axis’. The telegraphic metaphor enabled a view of digestion as not simply a mechanical or chemical process, but one that was understood in terms of time, space, and communication. However, such a framework also suggested problems of connection that were common to both systems, emphasising not only the healthy body’s quasi-telegraphic networks but also its vulnerability to delay, disruption, and pathological incoherence. This article will explore the use of telegraphic technologies as proxies for theorising gastric connection and more broadly the concept of ‘gastric time’ as a key conceit for understanding digestion as a process that was and is subject to the idiosyncrasies of bodily rhythms.</p>","PeriodicalId":45518,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Humanities","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10912-024-09884-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
From Italian physician Hieronymus Mercurialis’s contention that the stomach was ‘the king of the belly’, to its promotion by the end of the nineteenth century to the ‘monarch of humanity’ in patent medicine, to Byron Robinson’s discovery of the enteric nervous system in 1907 (a mesh of neural connectivity that led him to dub the gut ‘the second brain’), there has historically been a longstanding awareness of the expansive reach of the gut in the functions of the body. In the nineteenth century, the authority of the gut and its allyship with the brain became a focus for writers thinking about the intersections of illness and ‘modern life’. In medical texts, domestic health manuals, patent medicine, and fiction, the electric telegraph in particular became a way of envisaging what we would now call the ‘gut-brain axis’. The telegraphic metaphor enabled a view of digestion as not simply a mechanical or chemical process, but one that was understood in terms of time, space, and communication. However, such a framework also suggested problems of connection that were common to both systems, emphasising not only the healthy body’s quasi-telegraphic networks but also its vulnerability to delay, disruption, and pathological incoherence. This article will explore the use of telegraphic technologies as proxies for theorising gastric connection and more broadly the concept of ‘gastric time’ as a key conceit for understanding digestion as a process that was and is subject to the idiosyncrasies of bodily rhythms.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Medical Humanities publishes original papers that reflect its enlarged focus on interdisciplinary inquiry in medicine and medical education. Such inquiry can emerge in the following ways: (1) from the medical humanities, which includes literature, history, philosophy, and bioethics as well as those areas of the social and behavioral sciences that have strong humanistic traditions; (2) from cultural studies, a multidisciplinary activity involving the humanities; women''s, African-American, and other critical studies; media studies and popular culture; and sociology and anthropology, which can be used to examine medical institutions, practice and education with a special focus on relations of power; and (3) from pedagogical perspectives that elucidate what and how knowledge is made and valued in medicine, how that knowledge is expressed and transmitted, and the ideological basis of medical education.