Interview With Jesse Proudfoot

The next few months we’ll be highlighting authors who have published in Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry.

Jesse Proudfoot is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at Durham University. His research focuses on drug use among marginalized and racialized people, the politics of drug policy and treatment, and the relationship between addiction and structural violence.

What is your article “The Dreamwork of the Symptom: Reading Structural Racism and Family History in a Drug Addiction” about?

This article is about the relationship between oppressive social forces and illnesses like drug addiction. It’s common in medical anthropology to argue that seemingly individual illnesses need to be understood as shaped, and often produced, by social forces, but the precise ways that these forces produce illness is difficult to chart in concrete terms. In this article, I try to analyze this process, by looking at the case of one person I interviewed: Leon, an African American man from Chicago who had an addiction to crack cocaine. Drawing on psychoanalysis, and in particular, Freud’s idea of the dreamwork, I attempt to show how latent social forces like structural racism can find expression in symptoms such as drug addiction, but only through the mediation of other proximate layers—in Leon’s case, his complex relationship with his family and his own radical politics.

Tell us a little bit about yourself and your research interests.

I’ve been interested in drug use and addiction since my PhD, which was an ethnographic study of homeless drug users in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. I charted their experiences as the neighbourhood underwent rapid changes due to progressive developments in drug policy, as well as gentrification. My earlier work was more concerned with the politics of harm reduction drug policy, but over the years, I’ve become more interested in the broader question of addiction and the subjective experience of people with problematic relationships to substances. I’m most interested in thinking about symptoms—like addiction—as sites of connection between the social, the political, and the subjective.

What drew you to this project?

This research grew out of an 18 month period of fieldwork I conducted in Chicago in 2012-13. I was working in a halfway house for people being released from prison who were struggling with drug addictions. I was struck by the diversity of people’s experiences of addiction, which ranged from what we might call acute self-medication, in order to deal with intolerable life circumstances, to much more complex, unconscious dynamics related to childhood trauma. Having written about these different forms of addiction in an earlier paper (‘Traumatic Landscapes’, 2019), I became interested in understanding what else we can read in addictions and the broader question of how to understand the relationship between politics and symptoms.

What was one of the most interesting findings?

The hook of this paper is that understanding the causes of your illness is not the same as treating it. Critical medical anthropology places a lot of emphasis on the demystification of symptoms, implicitly arguing that by uncovering the social causes of illnesses, we can alleviate them. Even though it now sounds obvious, I was struck during this research by the gap between demystification and therapeutics. My interlocutor Leon had a very well-developed political analysis of his addiction, grounded in critical political economy and anti-racism, and we talked about this often. But these insights failed him where he needed them most, in changing his own relationship to drugs. Making sense of this gap was what prompted me to think more deeply about how we approach the question of demystification.

What are you reading, listening to, and/or watching right now?

I started running last year, which means I’m listening to a lot of podcasts. My current favorites are Know Your Enemy, which is a deep dive into American conservative thought for people on the Left, and Love is the Message by Tim Lawrence and Jeremy Gilbert, which is focused on dance music, counterculture, and collective joy—things I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about. The most recent novel I read was A Gate at the Stairs, by Lorrie Moore; a very funny and sad book about going to college, grief, and loss.

If there was one takeaway or action point you hope people will get from your work, what would it be?

The demystification of illness is a complex business and our critical efforts must be attentive to the highly particular ways that people experience and embody those social forces that medical anthropologists are often interested in. As I hope to show in the article, this is essential not only to more accurately theorize illness, but also to help people with addictions to make sense of their lives and navigate their recoveries. Care must be ‘structurally competent’ in Jonathan Metzl and Helena Hansen’s terms, but also—in the spirit of the best traditions within psychoanalysis—grounded in the particularities of life histories.

Other places to connect:
Website

Interview With Hanne Apers

The next few months we’ll be highlighting authors who have published in Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry.

Hanne Apers, a female PhD candidate at the University of Antwerp’s Centre for Population, Family, and Health, specializes in mental health and migration. With a background in psychology and anthropology, she is currently completing her PhD-research on the explanatory models of mental health among East-African migrants in Belgium.

What is your article “Explanatory Models of (Mental) Health Among Sub-Saharan African Migrants in Belgium: A Qualitative Study of Healthcare Professionals’ Perceptions and Practices” about?

This study explores how mental health professionals in Belgium perceive the mental health understandings of their patients with a sub-Saharan African (SSA). 22 professionals were interviewed, including ten who also have a SSA migration background. The study explores three main aspects. Firstly, it examines how professionals perceive their SSA patients’ explanatory models of mental health. Secondly, it investigates the impact of these perceptions on their treatment approaches. Lastly, it considers the influence of professionals’ cultural backgrounds, comparing those with and without an SSA background.

The findings highlight noticeable differences in explanatory models, the main distinction was found in the beliefs about what causes mental health issues. Professionals’ understanding of SSA models affects their treatment practices, those familiar with SSA views faced fewer language and interpretation challenges. Non-migrant professionals emphasized cultural sensitivity and SSA-background professionals adopted an integrated approach. These findings contribute to discussions about what it means to be “culturally competent” in mental health care.

Tell us a little bit about yourself and your research interests.

With a background in psychology and anthropology, my interest lies in exploring how different cultural views on mental health affect how people live, seek and prefer healthcare. As an anthropologist, I focus on qualitative research, favoring participatory, community-based methods to better understand the impact of cultural perspectives on healthcare dynamics.

What drew you to this project?

Numerous barriers and factors continue to hinder migrants’ access to healthcare. My aim was to contribute to lowering these barriers by comprehending the role of cultural understandings and illustrating how the organization of healthcare systems can be adapted to these differing understandings, and contribute to closing the treatment gap.

What was one of the most interesting findings?

The comparison between professionals with and without a similar migration background yielded intriguing insights, advocating for improved representation within healthcare systems.

What are you reading, listening to, and/or watching right now?

The book ‘Crazy Like Us’ by Ethan Watters provides a compelling non-academic exploration of how global mental healthcare is shaped by a prevailing Global North perspective, sometimes with detrimental effects.

If there was one takeaway or action point you hope people will get from your work, what would it be?

I hope to underscore the significance of recognizing cultural understandings and conceptualizations of health. It’s a crucial factor to consider if we aspire to develop and advocate for healthcare approaches that are truly inclusive.

Other places to connect:
Website
LinkedIn

Interview With Mary Hawk

The next few months we’ll be highlighting authors who have published in Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry.

Mary Hawk (DrPH) is the LSW professor and chair at the University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health, Department of Behavioral and Community Health Science. Dr. Hawk’s work includes the implementation and assessment of structural interventions to improve health outcomes for oppressed populations and the development of community-engaged approaches to optimize public health. She is co-founder of The Open Door, a harm reduction housing program created to improve health outcomes for chronically homeless people with HIV.

What is your article “Harm Reduction Principles in a Street Medicine Program: A Qualitative Study” about?

In this study we partnered with Operation Safety Net (OSN), a nonprofit that provides street medicine services to rough sleepers – people who are unhoused. We conducted qualitative interviews with OSN providers to pinpoint ways that street medicine differs from other kinds of healthcare and what elements of care were most helpful to patients.  We learned this care is built on relational harm reduction, which centers the patient-provider relationship. Ways that harm reduction played out included meeting patients where there are (both emotionally and practically, in this case on the street), offering genuine concern and dignity to patients, and supporting patients them in non-judgmental ways were found to be important aspects of this work. We hope these findings help others who care for marginalized patients consider how they can engage them in care and bridge them to other healthcare services, and ultimately help expand the field of street medicine.

Tell us a little bit about yourself and your research interests.

I worked in nonprofit settings for many years, mostly providing services to people with HIV (PWH) who experience oppression and marginalization. This community-based work is the foundation of my research. I’m interested in building evidence for community-driven approaches that advance health equity for historically excluded populations.  All my work centers on harm reduction, especially as a relational approach to care, which considers ways that patient-provider relationships can improve care outcomes. At the moment, I am working on a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-funded study that explores the impact of a harm reduction-based financial management intervention on adherence among unstably housed PWH, as well as a National Institute of Drug Abuse-funded study using mixed methods to investigate experiences of stigma in healthcare settings by PWH who use drugs.

What drew you to this project?

Operation Safety Net is an amazing organization.  When we first started meeting with Dr. Jim Withers, who has made an immeasurable impact on rough sleepers and street medicine providers across the world, we had an “aha moment” and realized that an essential piece of his work seemed to be rooted in relational harm reduction. It was exciting to explore these ideas with OSN providers. At the core of relational harm reduction is the idea that all patients are worthy of respect and autonomy, and we really saw that play out with the OSN team.

What was one of the most interesting findings?

In our planning meetings with Dr. Withers and other OSN leadership we could hear the genuine care they have for their patients, but seeing this through the interview data was very compelling. But the loss and grief they experience when their patients die was also clear. We talk about burnout in healthcare, but don’t often think about that in terms of grief experienced by providers.

What are you reading, listening to, and/or watching right now?

I’m right in the middle of “The Call,” an episode of This American Life that details an overdose prevention hotline, which is a great example of how we can show care for people who are too often stigmatized through harm reduction work.  I’m also a diehard Survivor fan!

If there was one takeaway or action point you hope people will get from your work, what would it be?

Humanism is at the heart of harm reduction approaches to care, including street medicine.  Affording people dignity and genuine concern is the jumping off point for engaging anyone in care, but especially those who regularly experience trauma and systematic oppression. It can make all the difference to not only their experiences of care but also their retention in care and, ultimately, clinical outcomes. 

Other places to connect:
Website
Twitter
LinkedIn
Instagram

Interview with Danya Fast

The next few months we’ll be highlighting authors who have published in Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry.

Danya Fast is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Medicine at the University of British Columbia (UBC) and an Associate Member of UBC’s Department of Anthropology. Her research focuses on tracing the substance use and care trajectories of young people who use drugs in Greater Vancouver, as these individuals navigate ongoing overdose and housing crises. 

What is your article Staying Together No Matter What: Becoming Young Parents on the Streets of Vancouver” about?

Among young people who use drugs and are experiencing poverty and homelessness, pregnancy is often viewed as an event that can meaningfully change their lives. In this way, youth’s perspectives seem to align with those of various healthcare, criminal justice, and child protection professionals. However, in our article we also describe moments when youth’s desires and decision-making are powerfully at odds with the perspectives of these professionals. For example, we describe how youth’s romantic relationships can shape understandings of right and wrong and the decision to “stay together no matter what” during pregnancy and early parenting, clashing with the demands of professionals that young couples separate for periods of time to attend residential drug treatment prior to or following childbirth. The result among young people can be painful and confusing cycles of loss, defeat, and harm. For Indigenous youth, these cycles often extend across generations.

Tell us a little bit about yourself and your research interests.

I am a medical anthropologist who has spent the past 15 years working closely with young people who use drugs in the context of unstable housing and homelessness in Vancouver, Canada. Across this period, I have been interested in how youth’s possibilities unfold through – but also around – an ever burgeoning and contracting care assemblage (to borrow a term from Andrea López) in the city, as individuals engage with, evade, and refuse state-sponsored programs and services. In my new book The Best Place, I trace the affective intensities that animate these moments of engagement, evasion, and refusal, as well as substance use itself.    

What drew you to this project?

Over the past decade and a half, I have worked closely with many young couples who use drugs, and always been eager to undertake a project focused on their perspectives and experiences surrounding pregnancy and early parenting. It was a pleasure to work with my Master’s student and co-author Reith Charlesworth on this project, which incorporated insights from both my own long-term fieldwork and Reith’s Master’s research with a distinct group of young people and couples.

What was one of the most interesting findings?

The most interesting, or perhaps important, finding in my view is how powerfully romantic relationships anchored young people’s moral worlds and decision-making regarding what was right and wrong in particular moments. The imperative to “stay together no matter what” among young couples was so powerful that it almost always overrode even the strongest warnings from social workers, probation officers, and others that youth must separate from each other for periods of time so that custody of a child could be maintained. This mis-match of perspectives was painfully confusing and frustrating for young people, and had heartbreaking consequences.

What are you reading, listening to, and/or watching right now?

Reservation Dogs (Disney+)

Crackdown Podcast

Johnny Appleseed by Joshua Whitehead

Habeas Viscus by Alexander Weheliye

If there was one takeaway or action point you hope people will get from your work, what would it be?

Young people who use drugs are enmeshed in elaborate moral worlds often anchored by relationships to place and to each other. It is critical that programs and services for pregnant and parenting youth are not just focused on reducing risks and harms, but also on supporting young people’s full humanity and desires for love, family, and homemaking.

Thank you for your time!


Other ways to connect:
Website
Twitter
LinkedIn

Interview with Carina Heckert

The next few months we’ll be highlighting authors who have published in Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry.

Carina Heckert is an Associate Professor of Anthropology in Department of Sociology and Anthropology at The University of Texas at El Paso. Her research focuses on how policies shape illness experiences and experiences seeking healthcare. Her forthcoming book Birth in Times of Despair: Sociopolitical Crises and Maternal Harm on the US Mexico Border (NYU Press) shows how longstanding unjust immigration, health, and social policies both before and during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic produce various forms of maternal harm in the border region.

What is your article Recalibrating the Scales: Enhancing Ethnographic Uses of Standardized Mental Health Instruments about?

We intended for “Recalibrating the Scales” to serve as a way to think about the ways standardized scales are incorporated into anthropological research. Often, anthropologists use scales as a means to generate quantitative data that facilitates conversations in public health and medicine. Through our own use of scales in multiple projects, we found that how people choose to respond to closed ended questions – which often included detailed elaborations, especially when their response could not fit into the confines of a scale – show that scales have more ethnographic potential than what has typically been recognized. The projects informing this article include the Dallas Translating Affect Project, which documented the emotional trajectories of recovery for survivors of intimate partner violence, and the El Paso Maternal Health and Emotional Distress Study, which explored the emotional experience of pregnancy among first- and second-generation immigrants in the US-Mexico border region.

Tell us a little bit about yourself and your research interests.

I am a medical anthropologist with interests in global health, health policy, immigration, reproductive health, gender, and Latin America. My earlier work focused on experiences of navigating global health HIV programs in Bolivia in the context of a national agenda aimed at decolonizing health services. More recently, my work focuses on pregnancy, birth, and postpartum experiences during a series of overlapping public health and social crises in the US-Mexico border region, including draconian enforcement of immigration policies, a mass shooting, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

What drew you to this project?

This current piece draws from multiple projects, including one that I collaborated on with my graduate mentor, Dr. Nia Parson. For me, this article was a fun way for us to bring together multiple projects that shared common themes related to emotions, immigration, and gender inequities. In both of the projects that we discuss, we incorporated standardized mental health scales as a way to produce quantitative data that we could put into conversation with interview narratives. We quickly noticed that many women were not content with providing a Likert-scale response to questions, and instead often provided detailed responses to closed-ended questions. We decided it was worth exploring the content of these responses and how ethnographers might use scales to actively elicit this complementary narrative data.

What was one of the most interesting findings?

I was initially very surprised that closed ended questions were eliciting details that often did not emerge in the interviews where we were actively soliciting longer detailed responses. As we discuss in the article, at times, simply asking questions in a different way can potentially lead to different ways for people to share their experiences.

What are you reading, listening to, and/or watching right now?

My guilty pleasure is Colombian telenovelas on Netflix. I recently finished watching Season 2 of The Queen of Flow. I’m not happy with how that show ended.

If there was one takeaway or action point you hope people will get from your work, what would it be?

As ethnographers are well aware, our interlocutors often have things to say about the research instruments that we are using. The nature of standardized closed ended scales often makes these comments and mutterings invisible, when they should be treated as ethnographic data in their own right.

Thank you for your time!


Other ways to connect:
Website
LinkedIn

Interview With Neil Armstrong

The next few months we’ll be highlighting authors who have published in Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry.

Neil Armstrong is a Student Mental Health Research Associate, Kings College London and Fellow in Harris Manchester College at University of Oxford. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy and Theology. Additionally, he has a Master of Science in Teaching and Doctor of Philosophy in Social Anthropology.

What is your article Is it Still Ok to be Ok? Mental Health Labels as a Campus Technology” about?

Is it Still Ok to be Ok? Mental Health Labels as a Campus Technology is about how students engage with mental health labels in new ways. Our ethnographic data show that although labels can still be a source of stigma, they are also something students use. Labels can facilitate interaction with academics and administrators; be used as a pliable means of negotiating social interaction; be creatively directed towards self-discovery; and can even be a means of promoting sexual capital and of finessing romantic encounters. So rather than being fixed and burdensome, labels emerge as flexible, fluid and contextual. To try to capture the usefulness of labels, we call them ‘campus technologies.’ Our findings give pause to quantitative mental health research that relies on labels having clear and simple meanings. But, equally, concerns about the power of labels to medicalize students also appear undermined.

Tell us a little bit about yourself and your research interests.

I am a medical anthropologist who uses ethnographic methods to make lived experience of mental health problems legible to clinically engaged research.  I am interested in mental health bureaucracy, in particular how ideas like accountability might conflict with care quality. Currently, I am researching student mental health and assessing what it might mean for universities to become compassionate. Collaborative Ethnographic Working in Mental Health was published by Routledge in December 2023.

What drew you to this project?

I became concerned that the social science literature on mental health labels was out of date. Looking around on campus I could see that students engage with labels in creative and productive ways and that the literature had not caught up. The SMarTeN project provided me with an opportunity to work with students to coproduce a paper exploring their experiences with labels and relating this to ideas in the academic literature (https://www.smarten.org.uk/).

What was one of the most interesting findings?

A lot of research into student mental health assumes we can easily understand what people mean when they fill out questionnaires that use mental health labels. Perhaps this was true in the past. But our ethnographic work suggests that today, the meanings of key terms like ‘depression’, ‘anxiety’ and ‘wellbeing’ are not fixed but fluid. Students actively engage with mental health labels to negotiate their life on campus. This suggests we might need to rethink how we conduct research, and particularly our reliance on quantitative data.

What are you reading, listening to, and/or watching right now?

I recently finished John Burnside’s beautiful and heartbreaking memoirs A Lie About My Father and Waking Up in Toytown. I’ve been listening to Blaze Foley and watching Severance.

If there was one takeaway or action point you hope people will get from your work, what would it be?

We need to revisit what we think we know about young people and mental health. Things may not be as they appear.


Interview with José Carlos Bouso

The next few months we’ll be highlighting authors who have published in Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry.

José Carlos Bouso is a Clinical Psychologist with a PhD in Pharmacology. As the Scientific Director at ICEERS (International Center for Ethnobotanical Education, Research & Service). José Carlos coordinates studies on the potential benefits of psychoactive plants, principally cannabis, ayahuasca, and ibogaine, with the goal of improving public health.

What is your article “Hallucinations and Hallucinogens: Psychopathology or Wisdom?” about?

“This text challenges the prevailing notion that hallucinations are exclusively associated with psychopathological states. It acknowledges that hallucinations can indicate psychopathology or neurological disorders but argues that they also commonly occur in individuals without any signs of psychopathology. The research suggests that certain types of hallucinations induced by hallucinogenic drugs may actually improve mental health. The authors propose a broader characterization of hallucinations as a common phenomenon associated at times with psychopathology but also with functional and even beneficial outcomes. Furthermore, they suggest that hallucinations can provide a pathway to understanding the mind and the world. This cultural shift in the interpretation of hallucinations could have implications for fields such as drug policy, civil law, psychiatry, and the reduction of stigma associated with mental disorders.”

Tell us a little bit about yourself and your research interests.

“I am a clinical psychologist and PhD in pharmacology and have been studying the pharmacological and therapeutic effects of hallucinogens since the 1990s. My first research focused on studying the potential of MDMA in the treatment of PTSD in women who have suffered sexual assault. Later, I conducted a study on the long-term effects of ayahuasca use on neuropsychiatric functions. Since 2012, I have been the Scientific Director of the International Center for Ethnobotanical Education Research & Service (ICEERS), where I coordinate various research projects. Our main areas of research include Global Mental Health, ayahuasca, medical cannabis, and the anti-addictive potential of ibogaine.”

What drew you to this project?

“The term hallucinogens is stigmatized due to its association with mental illness. This reinforces the stigma surrounding mental illness by precisely linking it to the presence of hallucinations. However, hallucinations are not necessarily a pathological phenomenon. Even for Esquirol and other French psychiatrists who laid the foundations of modern psychiatry, hallucinations were seen as a symptom of illness, not the cause. Today, the symptom is often confused with the cause. Hallucinations are a common phenomenon in human experience. Their most radical expression is seen in the effects produced by hallucinogens, which are now the subject of increasing research on their therapeutic potential. The analysis of the term hallucinogen and its relationship, not only with psychopathology but also with the process of knowing, should not only help reduce the stigma associated with it but also the stigma associated with mental illness.”

What was one of the most interesting findings?

“Undoubtedly, the most interesting result is having confirmed how the popular conception of the term hallucination does not correspond to the reality of the phenomenon. Etymologically, it refers to traveling through the mind. Even in classical Greece, there was a goddess of hallucinations, the goddess Pasithea. Oracles used hallucinations to make their predictions. The Bible is filled with hallucinatory phenomena. Numerous human circumstances can induce hallucinations, with prevalence rates indicating that up to 10% of the general population has experienced them at some point in their lives. Neurobiologically, perception itself can be hallucinatory, including imagination. And hallucinogenic drugs demonstrate how hallucinations can be a source of knowledge. Therefore, the main result is that hallucinations can be a psychopathological symptom but also a via regia to knowledge.”

What are you reading, listening to, and/or watching right now?

“I am currently reading several novels: “The Tartar Steppe” by Dino Buzzati, “The Family” by Sara Mesa, and “Prayer to Proserpina” by Sánchez-Piñol. I read “The Tartar Steppe” after visiting an exhibition by the Spanish sculptor Juan Muñoz and seeing an artwork inspired by the novel. Additionally, I am reading the new book by the biological anthropologist Juan Luis Arsuaga, titled “Our Body.” Recently, I watched a Spanish film called “Secaderos,” which explores the use of LSD by teenagers in a very open-minded manner. It was a surprise because I went to the cinema without having read the movie’s synopsis.”

If there was one takeaway or action point you hope people will get from your work, what would it be?

“To start considering hallucinations as a normal phenomenon of human consciousness that can be a sign of psychopathology but also a source of knowledge. Hallucinogenic drugs are prohibited because they induce hallucinations. If our thesis is correct, their legal status should change as soon as possible.”

Thank you for your time!


Other places to connect:
Website
Twitter
LinkedIn

Interview with Neil Krishan Aggarwal

The next few months we’ll be highlighting authors who have published in Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry.

Neil Krishan Aggarwal is an Assistant Professor at Columbia University. He is a cultural psychiatrist and social scientist. His research focuses on translating anthropological theories for clinical use and the cultural analysis of mental health knowledge and practices. 

What is your article “The Evolving Culture Concept in Psychiatric Cultural Formulation: Implications for Anthropological Theory and Psychiatric Practice” about?

“Social scientists debate what terms like “culture” mean. This article traces how the term “culture” has been defined in editions of the psychiatric classification manual known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). It explores similarities and definitions in these definitions.

Tell us a little bit about yourself and your research interests.

“I come from a racially, ethnically, linguistically, and religiously minoritized community in the United States. I’ve had to face people’s implicit and explicit biases about me based on my appearance. Therefore, I’m interested in how people generally make interpretations about others. We all make interpretations in everyday life, such as students rating professors, customers rating businesses, or people deciding which way to swipe on dating apps. Anthropologists have long pointed out that psychiatrists also make interpretations about patients through acts of diagnosis. This perspective informs my research interests in cultural psychiatry, cultural psychology, and psychiatric anthropology.”

What drew you to this project?

“I’ve spent the past 15 years trying to encourage mental health professionals to think of their work as fundamentally cultural, beyond just attending mandatory cultural competence trainings. I believe that my colleagues in anthropology have conversations that my colleagues in mental health benefit from hearing. Every revision to the DSM is an opportunity to explore the current state of cultural assumptions regarding mental health knowledge and practice. When DSM-5-TR came out in 2022, I saw this as a timely opportunity.”

What was one of the most interesting findings?

“The model of culture in the DSMs is different from other models that could change clinical practice. The DSM model assumes that providers can ask patients about their identities, that culture resides in the minds of patients. But a model of culture that looks at how patients and clinicians interact allows us to discover how patients and clinicians create culture during appointments.”

What are you reading, listening to, and/or watching right now?

“I just finished reading this brilliant article by the black queer scholar Keguro Macharia titled “On Being Area Studied.” As one of the few brown men in my departments, I haven’t been equally accepted as a peer, so I’ve been re-reading Frantz Fanon and trying to imagine how he has felt.

I’ve been exalting in the 50th anniversary of hip-hop this year. No other popular art form provides more incisive social commentary about what it’s like to transcend social marginaliztion as a minoritized individual. I just saw DJ Premier in concert this week, and I’ve been inspired to rediscover the poetry of artists like KRS-One, Rakim, Nas, Biggie Smalls, Q-Tip, Jay-Z, and other greats. I’ve also been jamming to AP Dhillon, Gurinder Gill, Shinda Kahlon, and Karan Aujla on the Punjabi Bhangra side.

I love Hindi cinema. Streaming has really allowed movie stars to try new roles, and I’m captivated by a show titled Asur. Check it out.”

If there was one takeaway or action point you hope people will get from your work, what would it be?

“Whether we use knowledge from psychiatry, psychology, the law, or any other form of professionalized expert knowledge, we can never fully know anyone else. How do we cultivate a space for respectful curiosity?”

Thank you for your time!


Other places to connect:
Twitter

Interview with Lawrence T. Monocello

The next few months we’ll be highlighting authors who have published in Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry.

Lawrence T. Monocello is a T32 Postdoctoral Research Scholar in the Department of Psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis. Lawrence Monocello received his Ph.D. in 2022 from the University of Alabama. His dissertation examined how cultural, social, and political-economic factors shaped disordered eating among South Korean men in Seoul. Currently, he contributes anthropological perspectives to a transdisciplinary team of world-class researchers on preventing/treating eating disorders and childhood obesity.

What is your article “Guys with Big Muscles Have Misplaced Priorities”: Masculinities and Muscularities in Young South Korean Men’s Body Image” about?

“Male body image research only makes up about 1% of the body image literature, and what literature does exist tends to focus on white, Western men’s concerns with muscularity. Using cognitive and biocultural methods, this article examines how young Korean men negotiate and navigate multiple cultural models of ideal male bodies. It not only questions the model of Western masculinity which underlies male body image research but also problematizes the notion of a single kind of “muscularity” to which men may aspire. Drawing on the concept of “masculinities”—the multiple, hierarchized, and increasingly hybridized ways of being male in a given society—this article advances the concept of “muscularities” to account for their multiple, hierarchized, and hybridized models of muscularity, not just as biological traits but as meaningful, embodied engagements with their social and political-economic conditions.”

Tell us a little bit about yourself and your research interests.

“My research interests lie primarily in understanding how individuals’ variable engagement with culture affects health. In non-anthropological health research, culture—if it is considered at all—is usually treated as some sort of monolithic, categorical variable to which causality is attributed. Anthropologists have long challenged this notion, understanding that culture is dynamic, and that the lived experience of culture varies individual-to-individual and in relation with other social, political-economic, and demographic factors. However, connecting rich ethnography with broader models and measures of health has proven difficult. Cognitive anthropological mixed-methods, which combine rigorous ethnography and statistical modeling, have a ton of potential for connecting individuals’ lived experience of their meaning systems on their own terms to health outcomes. As I’ve been recently working in a biomedical context, it’s become increasingly evident to me that there is not only great opportunity, but moral necessity, for medical anthropologists to contribute our expertise and be more active in framing research on topics like social determinants of health.”

What drew you to this project?

“When I was a junior at Case Western Reserve University, I took The Anthropology of Body Image with Eileen Anderson. I remember reading some of the literature on male body image and being confused at how, as a white, cisgender male who struggled with body image, the data presented and conclusions it reached seemed not to apply to me that much. It got me really interested in intracultural variation and how it affected lived experience. Once I got to graduate school, I found that body image was “good to think with” during my theory courses. Around the same time, my Asian-American friends from undergrad started sending me K-Pop videos and I noticed how male idols were presenting in media. I became curious about to whether and to what extent men internalized those images versus those in the global White Western media. I found that there wasn’t much research on it, so I decided to do it myself.”

What was one of the most interesting findings?

“One of the most interesting findings was that, despite a lot of my participants saying that people don’t talk about men’s bodies (at least to the same extent that they do women’s bodies), everyone had opinions about them and everyone’s understandings of social expectations about men’s bodies and their meaning were extremely consistent.”

What are you reading, listening to, and/or watching right now?

“Now that I’ve finished my dissertation I’m trying to get back into reading fiction. I’m in the middle of Moby Dick now. I used to be kind of skeptical of “queer readings” of literature, but I’m convinced that it’s the only way to read Moby Dick.”

If there was one takeaway or action point you hope people will get from your work, what would it be?

“When we’re looking to address difficult phenomena like eating disorders across cultures, it’s extremely important for researchers to (1) unpack how people are really experiencing it (i.e., not just transplanting political-economically powerful white US emic perspectives elsewhere) and (2) for anthropologists to be able to articulate the barriers and disjunctures which emerge during ethnographic fieldwork in ways accessible to the actors who directly interact with people suffering from the phenomena (i.e., clinicians, public health practitioners, policymakers).”

Thank you for your time!


Other places to connect:
Website
LinkedIn
Twitter

Interview with Iben Emilie Christensen

The next few months we’ll be highlighting authors who have published in Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry.

Iben Emilie Christensen is a Danish sociologist and PhD student at the Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, and at VIVE, The Danish Center for Social Science Research. She is in the final stage of her PhD project focusing on everyday life among people with severe mental and physical illnesses.

What is your article Senses of Touch: The Absence and Presence of Touch in Health Care Encounters of Patients with Mental Illness about?

“Based on ethnographic fieldwork, the article explores the significance of touch and physical examination in different healthcare encounters among people with severe mental (schizophrenia, bipolar disease, and severe depression) and physical illnesses. We found that touch and physical examination of this patient group is limited in healthcare encounters leaving the patients with feelings of being misunderstood, less socially approved, and less worthy of trust. Despite patients being seen, heard and treated with care and empathy by health care professionals, it was not enough for them to feel recognized or think of the encounter as a pleasant one. Overall, the article shows that when touch and physical examination takes place in healthcare encounters it gives the patients recognition – their bodily sensations and symptoms are taken seriously and not least, they are recognized as patients and human beings, suffering from a somatic disease and not only mental disorders with psychiatric label.”

Tell us a little bit about yourself and your research interests.

“The overall aim of my PhD project is to study the everyday life among people who live with both mental and physical illnesses, and to explore how they experience and navigate within the health care system. My PhD is part of a larger research project at the University of Copenhagen called SOFIA, with the primary aim to reduce the all-cause mortality of patients with severe mental illness and comorbidity in Denmark by improving the treatment of their comorbid physical conditions in general practice. The findings contribute to the SOFIA project regarding the experiences of people with severe mental and physical illnesses, their healthcare-seeking strategies, and their experiences when engaging with the healthcare system.”

What drew you to this project?

“I worked as a researcher at VIVE, The Danish Center for Social Science Research, when I was offered the opportunity to be part of the large research project SOFIA as a PhD student at the University of Copenhagen. The chance to explore a new research field, such as psychiatry, and a particular interest in inequity and inequality in healthcare motivated me to pursue this project. People with severe mental illness die 10-20 years earlier compared to people without mental illness and according to research part of this excess mortality stems from physical illnesses, which are believed to be underdiagnosed and undertreated. The ethnographic fieldwork gained important insight into the interlocutors’ everyday life, which also involved these topics.”

What was one of the most interesting findings?

“In the beginning of the PhD study, I did not anticipate that touch, particularly procedural touch (physically examination of patients), would to be the topic of the first article. However, during fieldwork and when observing the interlocutors as they interacted with different healthcare professionals, I wondered why they never seemed to find the encounter pleasant. This prompted my co-authors and I to focus on what did not take place, what did not occur and what I did not observe, leading us to realize the significance of touch in healthcare encounters.”

What are you reading, listening to, and/or watching right now?

“Since my next article focuses on patients’ experiences of symptoms and the interpretative process when living with mental and physical illnesses simultaneously, I read about bodily sensations and how they transform into symptoms in an everyday life perspective.”

If there was one takeaway or action point you hope people will get from your work, what would it be?

“People with severe mental illness often face vulnerability, social exposure, and stigma, and may live on the edge of society. I believe, that if a doctor’s caring hand and a physical examination during healthcare encounters give this patient group a feeling of being recognized as they are, as patients with potential somatic illness, and as human beings with same rights and possibilities, I think it is a minimal adjustment to incorporate touch as a continuous procedure in healthcare encounters.”

Thank you for your time!


Other places to connect:
Website
LinkedIn