The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Tempering of Medical Anthropology: Troubling Natural Categories
Abstract
This article reviews an approach in medical anthropology that commenced in the early 1980s and that continues to the present day in which biomedical knowledge and practices are systematically incorporated into anthropological analyses. Discussion then focuses on contributions made by feminists and medical anthropologists to the literature on medicalization and resistance, illustrating how the ethnographic approach has been crucial in critically reconceptualizing and situating these concepts historically and cross‐culturally. The concept of local biologies is introduced in the third section of the article in creating the argument that the coproduction of biologies and cultures contributes to embodied experience, which, in turn, shapes discourse about the body. Subjective reporting at menopause provides an illustrative case study of local biologies in action. The final part of the article takes up the question of the moral economy of scientific knowledge. Comparative ethnographic work in intensive care units in Japan and North America reveals how a moral economy is put into practice in connection with brain‐dead bodies and the procurement of organs from them. Medical anthropological contributions policy making about biomedical technologies is briefly considered in closing, [formation of medical anthropology, medicalization, resistance, local biologies, moral economy of science]
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Phylogenies and the Comparative Method
Felsenstein, J. (1985) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/284325 · Cited by 9,793
The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology
Harvey, P. H., & Pagel, M. D. (1991) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198546412.001.0001 · Cited by 4,337
Recent Developments in the Analysis of Comparative Data
Pagel, M. D., & Harvey, P. H. (1988) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/416027 · Cited by 442
CLADISTIC TESTS OF ADAPTATIONAL HYPOTHESES
Coddington, J. A. (1988) · Cladistics · doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1988.tb00465.x · Cited by 438
Cited by
Les économies morales revisitées
Fassin, D. (2009) · Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales · doi:10.1017/s0395264900027499 · Cited by 521
Kirmayer, L. J. (2006) · Transcultural Psychiatry · doi:10.1177/1363461506061761 · Cited by 306
Epigenetics: Embedded bodies and the molecularisation of biography and milieu
Niewöhner, J. (2011) · BioSocieties · doi:10.1057/biosoc.2011.4 · Cited by 297
Valeggia, C. R., & Snodgrass, J. J. (2015) · Annual Review of Anthropology · doi:10.1146/annurev-anthro-102214-013831 · Cited by 171
Singh, I. (2011) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.03.049 · Cited by 132
“As Margaret Lock’s seminal work has shown, analyses of ‘local biology’ (Lock, 2001) problematize assumptions about universal, natural health phenomena without falling back into dichotomous nature-nurture arguments.”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Lock, M.
- Venue
- Medical Anthropology Quarterly
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-12
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 478-492
- ISSN
- 0745-5194 (ISSN-L)
- 1548-1387
- OpenAlex
- W2044953130
- Cited by
- 240
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 9.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Tempering of Medical Anthropology: Troubling Natural Categories. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1525/maq.2001.15.4.478
- The paper
- Lock, M. (2001). The Tempering of Medical Anthropology: Troubling Natural Categories. Medical Anthropology Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1525/maq.2001.15.4.478
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.