Commentary: The appearance of new medical cosmologies and the re-appearance of sick and healthy men and women: a comment on the merits of social theorizing

Abstract

Cosmology, 1770–1870’ 1 is something of a classic. A search using the Thomson ISI Web of Knowledge Service reveals that, within this database, the article has some 133 citations and rate of citations have remained consistent over time. Furthermore, the impact is not limited to sociology; the top six subject areas that return the highest citation scores are ‘history and philosophy of science’ (29.3%); ‘social sciences, biomedical’ (23.3%); ‘public, environmental and occupational health’ (21.1%); ‘sociology’ (20.3%); ‘health care sciences and services’ (12.8%); and ‘medicine, general and internal’ (6.0%). It is intriguing that this conceptual paper should have such an enduring and broad significance. But herein lies its merit; as the sociologist Bryan Turner notes: ‘Ultimately sociology can better serve the practical problems and needs of patients by formulating sociological rather than medical questions.’ 2 This statement reflects Strauss’s well-known distinction between ‘sociology in medicine’ and ‘sociology of medicine’. 3 The former refers to research agendas that are professionally and institutionally driven, whereas the latter implies a more critical approach, wherein the philosophical and epistemological underpinnings of medical knowledge and medical practice are open to scrutiny. Jewson’s analysis certainly scrutinises the content of medical knowledge and reveals how it is contingent upon socio-economic relations between the patrons and producers. At a time when health and social researchers are increasingly encouraged to undertake empirically-based and policyorientated research it is useful to reflect on the