不可调和的差异呢?

Yarí Pérez Marín
{"title":"不可调和的差异呢?","authors":"Yarí Pérez Marín","doi":"10.3828/LIVERPOOL/9781789622508.003.0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 2 outlines the limits of a normative notion of the body in colonial medical discourse during the last third of the sixteenth century. It centres on a close reading of texts by Alonso López de Hinojosos and Juan de Cárdenas, comparing their ideas with discussions then unfolding in Europe about the purported radical difference between the physiology of Spaniards and those belonging to other ‘nations’ [naciones]. The chapter argues that American medical texts (sometimes unwittingly) became satellite testing grounds for emerging European ideas, not just on social cohesion, but also on racial difference. The juxtaposition of Old World ideas about corporeality with New World medical observations were both metaphorical and literal, given the reliance on Nahua bodies as sources of information to develop modes of care designed primarily to meet the needs of non-Indigenous patients. Despite many shared points of view, the comparison of Hinojosos against Cárdenas reveals a colonial paradox, with anatomy finding accumulating evidence of a repeating body template largely unaffected by a subject’s ethnicity, and physiology advancing instead models that understood racialised bodies as performing differently in arenas like nourishment needs or resistance to disease.","PeriodicalId":204071,"journal":{"name":"Marvels of Medicine","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Irreconcilable differences?\",\"authors\":\"Yarí Pérez Marín\",\"doi\":\"10.3828/LIVERPOOL/9781789622508.003.0003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Chapter 2 outlines the limits of a normative notion of the body in colonial medical discourse during the last third of the sixteenth century. It centres on a close reading of texts by Alonso López de Hinojosos and Juan de Cárdenas, comparing their ideas with discussions then unfolding in Europe about the purported radical difference between the physiology of Spaniards and those belonging to other ‘nations’ [naciones]. The chapter argues that American medical texts (sometimes unwittingly) became satellite testing grounds for emerging European ideas, not just on social cohesion, but also on racial difference. The juxtaposition of Old World ideas about corporeality with New World medical observations were both metaphorical and literal, given the reliance on Nahua bodies as sources of information to develop modes of care designed primarily to meet the needs of non-Indigenous patients. Despite many shared points of view, the comparison of Hinojosos against Cárdenas reveals a colonial paradox, with anatomy finding accumulating evidence of a repeating body template largely unaffected by a subject’s ethnicity, and physiology advancing instead models that understood racialised bodies as performing differently in arenas like nourishment needs or resistance to disease.\",\"PeriodicalId\":204071,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Marvels of Medicine\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Marvels of Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3828/LIVERPOOL/9781789622508.003.0003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Marvels of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3828/LIVERPOOL/9781789622508.003.0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

第2章概述了在16世纪最后三分之一的殖民医学话语中规范的身体概念的限制。它以仔细阅读Alonso López de Hinojosos和Juan de Cárdenas的文本为中心,将他们的观点与当时在欧洲展开的关于西班牙人和其他“国家”(naciones)生理学之间据称的根本差异的讨论进行比较。这一章认为,美国医学文献(有时是无意中)成为新兴欧洲思想的卫星试验场,这些思想不仅涉及社会凝聚力,还涉及种族差异。旧世界关于肉体的观念与新世界医学观察的并放在一起,既是隐喻,也是字面意思,因为依赖纳华人的身体作为信息来源,以发展主要为满足非土著病人需要而设计的护理模式。尽管有许多共同的观点,Hinojosos与Cárdenas的比较揭示了一个殖民悖论,解剖学发现了一个重复的身体模板在很大程度上不受受试者种族影响的证据,而生理学则提出了一些模型,认为种族化的身体在营养需求或对疾病的抵抗力等方面表现不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Irreconcilable differences?
Chapter 2 outlines the limits of a normative notion of the body in colonial medical discourse during the last third of the sixteenth century. It centres on a close reading of texts by Alonso López de Hinojosos and Juan de Cárdenas, comparing their ideas with discussions then unfolding in Europe about the purported radical difference between the physiology of Spaniards and those belonging to other ‘nations’ [naciones]. The chapter argues that American medical texts (sometimes unwittingly) became satellite testing grounds for emerging European ideas, not just on social cohesion, but also on racial difference. The juxtaposition of Old World ideas about corporeality with New World medical observations were both metaphorical and literal, given the reliance on Nahua bodies as sources of information to develop modes of care designed primarily to meet the needs of non-Indigenous patients. Despite many shared points of view, the comparison of Hinojosos against Cárdenas reveals a colonial paradox, with anatomy finding accumulating evidence of a repeating body template largely unaffected by a subject’s ethnicity, and physiology advancing instead models that understood racialised bodies as performing differently in arenas like nourishment needs or resistance to disease.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Conclusion Irreconcilable differences? Epilogue Conclusion Works cited
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1