Text
E-book From Photography to fMRI : Epistemic Functions of Images in Medical Research on Hysteria
In early 2011, while browsing the internet, I accidentally came across the online versionof aNewYorkTimesarticle titled “Is Hysteria Real? Brain Images Say Yes.”1At that point,I too held the view that continues to dominate the humanities literature. According tothis view,hysteria was“written out of current medicine”during the twentieth century.2Itthushadno“placeintheseriousreachesofcontemporaryscience.”3ButErikaKinetz,the author of the article published in September 2006, challenged this widely acceptedview, claiming instead that hysteria was still among us. Importantly, Kinetz pointedout a largely neglected fact—since the turn of the twenty-first century, there has been aresurgence of medical studies that use images to investigate hysteria. Yet, interestinglyenough, in the humanities, the old image of hysteria, which sees this age-old illnessas a mere myth, still holds. For example, writing in 2004, the art historian Amandadu Preez has argued that hysteria “manifests exclusively through visual appearancesand images and is reproduced in imitations and representations. Since its aetiology isfantasmatic, hysteria has no anatomical or corporeal basis. As a result, the conditioncanbedescribedasasimulacrumofsymptoms.”4Bycontrast,Kinetzofferedadifferenttake on hysteria.Before developing the main point of her article, Kinetz sketched a concise medicalhistory of hysteria. She touched upon hysteria’s origins in ancient Egypt and Greece asa female malady attributed to a misplaced womb, a belief that became inscribed intothe disorder’s very name (i.e.,hysterain Greek means uterus). She then emphasisedthe identification of this disorder with demonic possession during the Middle Ages.After that, Kinetz foregrounded the scientific contributions of the nineteenth-centuryFrench neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot and his two pupils, Pierre Janet and “thenow-unfashionable” Freud.
Tidak tersedia versi lain