CorporealSemiotics:TheBodyoftheText/theTextoftheBody 413
Medicine," which I briefly referred to a moment ago.^108 Rita Charon,
one of the principle experts in the field, asserts "the centrality of
storytelling"forallformsofmedicalpractice:
A scientifically competent medicine alone cannot help a patient grapple
with the loss of health and find meaning in illness and dying....
[D]octors need the expertise to listen to their patients, to understand as
best they can the ordeals of illness, to honor the meanings of their
patients'narrativesofillness...(3)From an outsider's perspective, the positive side of this project is its
shift of emphasis, from the patient as an object to being the subject of
his/herstory.Whilethisisclearlyanempoweringmove,itmust,onthe
other hand, seem at least curious that this blueprint for a division of
labor between science and culture should place so much emphasis on
issues of honor, essentially a feudal category which seems at odds with
the rationalized world of neoliberal capitalism. Both in an earlier 2001
version and in the book's two subsequent editions, even in their title,
questions of esteem and respect are looming large, maybe in explicit
acknowledgment of the asymmetries of power and knowledge which
determine the doctor-patient relationship. Narrative Medicine is
certainly right in highlighting that narratives may indeed initiate and
provide an at least preliminary ground for establishing patient-doctor-
relationships. However, Rose Kushner, former member of the National
Cancer Advisory Board, wrote quite bluntly about this relationship:
"The smiling oncologist does not know whether his patients vomit or
not" (qtd. in Mukherjee 209). At the same time, there is a dose of a-
synchronicityinvolvedinNarrativeMedicine'sprojectwhichshouldnot
be lost on a cultural critic, especially a materialist one: Narrative
Medicine makes claims for narrative—claims of truth-in-representation
(^108) I am not interested here in asserting the "growing acknowledgement of the
value of the humanities in medical education"—one of the key points of the
Medical Humanities (Beveridge qtd. in Birkle ix-x); I happen to believe that
doctors in their practice cannot be cajoled into acknowledging this fact even
while "a purely biotechnological approach to patient care" (Beveridge qtd. in
Birkleix-x)mayitselfbeinsufficient.MyassessmentoftheMedicalHumanities
differsfrombuthasnonethelessprofitedfromBeveridge'sargument.