Cambridge Studies in Medical Anthropology 2
Editors
Ronald Frankenberg, Centre for Medical Social Anthropology, University
of Keele
Byron Good, Department of Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School
Alan Harwood, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts,
Boston
Gilbert Lewis, Deparomen of Social Anthropology, Univesity of
Cambridge
Roland Littlewood, Dspartment of Anthropology, University College
London
‘Margaret Lock, Departmen of Humanities and Social Studies in Medicine
‘McGill University
Nancy Scheper-Hughes, Department of Anthropology, University of
California, Berkeley
Medical anthropology is the fastest growing specialist area within anthropology,
both in North America and in Europe. Beginning as an applied field serving public
iat, medical anthropology now provides a significant forum for many
jgent debates in anthropology and the humanities.
‘Medical anthropology includes the tudy of medical inetitutions and health eare in
a variety of rich and poor societies, the investigation of the cultural construction of
illness, andthe analysis of ideas about the body, birth, maturation, ageing, and death,
‘This new series includes theoretically innovative monographs, state-of-the-art,
collections of essays on current isues, and short books introducing the main themes
inthe subdiscipline.
1 Lynn M. Morgan, Community participation in health: the politics of primary care
in Conta Rica
Embodiment and experience
The existential ground of culture and self
Edited by
‘Thomas J. Csordas
Gare Wentem Reserve Univesity
CAMBRIDGE 1974
UNIVERSITY PRESS9 Chronic pain and the tension between the
body as subject and object
Jean Jackson
This chapter uses an “embodiment” approach to examine some of the
‘mysteries of chronic pain. An embodiment perspective “requires that the
body as a methodological figure must itself be nondualistic, i-e., not distinct
from or in interaction with an opposed principle of mind” (Csordas 1990:
8). I approach pain as something quintessentially lived and experienced in
the body. As much as possible I assume the experiencer’s perspective of
being-in-the-world (Merleau-Ponty, 1962 (quoted in Csordas 1993: 3)),
specifically in the pain-full world. I explore the ways in which the experi-
cence of chronic pain is simultancously sensation and emotion, neither
preceding the other, and critically examine our model of chronic pain as first
‘caused (in either the body or the mind) and then experienced.
‘This discussion also looks at pain as preobjective, that is, not yet
involved with a subject-object distinction, and explores the connections
between language and pain: the role played by our analytic language, and
the notion that @ pain sufferer speaks the language of a world different from
the everyday world. This language, and pain sufferers’ opinions about
successfully communicating about their lived pain are also considered,
drawing on Schutz’s notion of multiple realities, in order to understand why
people with chronic pain report feeling profoundly understood by fellow
sufferers and profoundly misunderstood by non-sufferers.
Introduction to the research.
1 draw on data collected during an ethnographic research project in an
inpatient chronic pain treatment center in New England (here referred to as,
the Commonwealth Pain Center, or CPC). The CPC, a separate twenty-one
bed inpatient unit in a private nonprofit rehabilitation hospital, offers a
‘multidisciplinary one-month program geared to reducing chronic pain and
teaching skills for coping with it. Treatment involves a team approach and
{focuses on conservative, non-invasive therapies, including physical therapy
(exercise, whirlpool, ice massage, ultrasound, transcutancous nerve stimu-
lation); cognitive therapies (relaxation training, biofeedback); social services
20202 Jean Jackson
group psychotherapy; and one-on-one psychiatric therapy, Goals of this
ccenter ~ like those of many other centers around the country’ ~ include
Climinating the source of pain when feasible, teaching the patient his or her
fimitations, improving pain control, relieving drug dependence, and
treating underlying depression and insomnia. The CPC also attempts to
examine issues of secondary gain, tries to improve family and commut
support systems, and in general works at returning patients to functional
‘and productive lives, The majority of patients have lower back pain, Next in
frequency are headaches and neck pain, followed by complaints of facial,
chest, arm and abdominal pai
“The staff sees some patients as entering with an acknowledged-by-all
“zeal” problem with overlays of depression or “pain habits.”” Other patients
‘are admitted with a problem seen as originally organic (c.g. the result of
‘ar accident), but now including significant psychogenic elements. And
many patients come in with mysterious pain problems which staff must
‘ring out into the open (asking what patients consider prying questions) in
“order to arrive at a more comprehensive diagnosis. No patients are admitted
‘with “uncomplicated” chronic pain ~ pain due to arthritis or osteoporosis,
for instance if the patient handles it as well a could be expected. “Ifaman
‘has pain from degenerative disk disease but doesn't complain about it, is
‘working full-time, and has a goud sclationship with his wife, he doesn’t need
external contingency management” (Schaeffer 1983: 24)
‘All CPC patients not only have chronic pain but exhibit chronie pain
syndrome to some degree, a condition in which pain has taken over a
sufferer’ life. Chronic pain is defined as any continuing pain that has lost its
biological function (Bonica 1976: 11; Black 1979: 34). Pain usually indicates
nociception (the onset of a provoking or harmful condition) ~ that is, iis a
Symptom rather than a disease, a “normal” indication of something abnor-
‘mal, Any chronic pain whose underlying pathology is not totally clear (as
‘with most patients at the CPC) confounds the common-sense notions of
disease and health, Most clinicians agree that acute pain turns into chronic
pain after the somewhat arbitrary cutoff point of six months,” but disagree
bout the extent to which chronic pain is due to psychogenic, rather than
ppysical causes, and the consequent implications for treatment.
Research was carried out at the CPC from February 1986 to February
1987, which included eight months spent on the unit observing and inter-
acting with 2 total of 173 resident patients. In all, T conducted 196 inter~
‘views with 136 patients (60 of whom were interviewed twice) and inter-
jewed 20 staff members as well. My main concern was to investigate
‘cognitive restructuring” in patients. The social context of treatment at the
CPC, involving intensive interaction, results in patients creating new inter-
subjective meanings of pain during their stay. I wanted to know if these
The body as subject and object 203
changes in the way patients thought about pain correlated with self-reports
about improvement. In addition, a majority of patients resented at least
some ofthe policies and ideology of the program, and I was interested in
tow pains dest wth hemscts ther psn, and tain seting of ch
confrontation.
Confusion is another characteristic of life at the center. This, as I have
argued elsenhere (J. Jackson 1992), isthe result of (1) the nature ot pin
itself (ts invisibility, its subjectivity, its challenge to Western mind-bodl