Disease Theories It is perhaps obvi

Disease Theories
It is perhaps obvious that diseases vary with location. People who live in cold climes, such
as in Greenland, Finland, or the Falkland Islands, do not often suffer from malaria, a disease
linked with tropical climates. It may also be obvious that disease can vary with aspects of
culture. For instance, a dangerous parasitic infection called bilharzia is spread by snails found
in bodies of water. In one Egyptian village, it was found to be much more prevalent among
the Muslim residents than among the Christians. This was no mystery. The Muslims' ritual
bathing before prayer (wudu) increased their exposure to the parasite.
Cultural factors affect not only the likelihood of disease but the very concept of disease
itself. Different cultures explain and treat illness in different ways. In fact, the very meaning of
the words "sick" and "healthy" can vary with time and place. In an effort to identify, classify,
and explain illness, societies develop "disease-theory systems." The researchers who developed
this ground-breaking analysis in 1978, George Foster and Barbara Anderson, identified three
general theories used by cultures, in whole or in part, to explain disease.
The first is the personalistic theory of disease. It attributes illness to malevolent agents-
witches, ghosts, angry gods, ancestral spirits, and the like. In other words, a "person," either
temporal or spiritual, inflicts disease upon the victim. Illness may be a punishment (meted out
to either an individual or a group) for something done or not done, or it may simply be an
expression of the general wrath of the malevolent agent. Some cultures or subcultures are
personalistic regarding all disease. Others adopt personalistic theories for some dise but
not for others.. Members of many religious groups, for instance, have portrayed AIDS as divine
retribution for an afflicted person's supposed sins. These same communities may accept an
entirely scientific explanation for the causes of, say, lung cancer. According to the norms of
their religious subcultures, this is not contradictory because a personalized spiritual force has
the power to assert itself whenever it pleases. It may also choose not to assert itself, but to let
nature operate in routine ways.
In contrast is naturalistic disease theory. It posits that illness results from impersonal, natural
causes. Here, illness is understood not as something created by a powerful personage, but
rather as the result of impersonal processes that occur in the natural world. • A) Since about
the 17th
century, Western medicine has been highly naturalistic. It assumes scientifically provable
links between poor health and toxic matter, accidents, or living organisms such as bacteria and
viruses. • B) Another example is the Ayurveda system, which originated in India more than
5,000 years ago. This theory links illnesses to imbalances in the mind-body system. • C) It
holds that the key to health is the restoration of the body's natural balance through diet,
exercise, and seasonal routines. • D)
A third approach looks to emotional events or conditions for the origins of disease. Much of traditional Chinese medicine is founded on the idea that emotional disharmony causes
illness. In Latin America, a person showing signs of fatigue, vagueness, and confusion may be
diagnosed with susto—or "soul loss"—an ailment caused by anxiety or fright. In a society where
a naturalistic disease theory holds sway, this would not be looked on as a "real" disease,
because it is psychosomatic. It has psychological or emotional causes.
Yet, the boundaries between emotion-based and naturalistic views of disease are blurring,
as naturalistic studies discover new links between emotional states and measurable organ
function. For example, doctors at Johns Hopkins University and elsewhere have established
"broken heart syndrome" (technically, stress cardiomyopathy) as a naturalistically supportable
cause of heart failure. Caused by grief over the death of a loved one or by other emotional
trials, broken heart syndrome involves the sustained release of adrenaline and other stress
hormones to the point where the cardiovascular system malfunctions and perhaps faiis. The
exact mechanisms of the syndrome have not yet been confirmed, but the links between an
emotional state and organ malfunction are clear.
Of course, the primacy of an illness theory in society will help decide the nature of its health-
care system. For instance, a personalistic disease theory calls for treatment by a shaman or
some other spiritual adept. Only a specialist with perceived magical powers can ward off
curses or break spells. Increasingly, societies demonstrate treatment patterns reflecting more '
than one disease theory. The aforementioned coexistence of personalistic views of AIDS and
naturalistic views of other diseases is but one example. It is common in Western societies for
cancer patients, disappointed in medical science, to seek spiritual cures or emotional therapy
instead. Malaysian urban hospitals offer first-rate science-based treatment, but many disease-
afflicted people also seek help from a bomoh, or traditional Malay healer. The prevailing
attitude worldwide seems to be that naturalistic healing is fine, provided it leaves room for
people to seek treatments consistent with other theories of the origin of disease.