social construction of health and illness essay

Social Construction of Illness Essay (Critical Writing)

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Works cited.

The social construction of illness is a major area of concern for social scientists and researchers. Social scientists seek to demystify various parametrical thresholds that characterize illness in social contexts (Barker 281). Social constructionists contend that human beings define and articulate illness depending on cultural, social, and sociological orientation. This reality precipitates indulgence into thresholds that determine human action and reaction to illness (Barker 281). In most cases, people view illness based on perceptions and aspirations that manifest through existence and propagation within social and cultural contexts. According to experts, most constructions that manifest about illnesses are indicative of diverse existential inclinations and realities (Barker 283). Cultural and social realities play an important role in the initiation and propagation of constructionist perceptions that define essence and rationale for illness. Whenever individuals suffer an illness, they seek to demystify and rationalize occurrence of such monumental changes (Barker 284). Indeed, the social construction of illness emanates from socio-cultural realities that characterize human existence in social contexts.

As earlier mentioned, the social construction of illness is an important domain about sociological discourse. Experts strive to decode complexities that characterize its essence in social contexts (Armstrong 2025). Due to its ubiquitous nature and inclination, illness suffices as a major reality that recurrently afflicts human beings in their existential contexts. Therefore, it is important for social scientists to develop an explorative regime that seeks to probe into illness and other areas that characterize existence and propagation in social contexts (Armstrong 2026). Social constructionists argue that most definitions and perceptions that seek to explain and justify illness have culturally derived nuances.

Most social entities ascribe cultural justifications to illness, thereby affecting how people perceive it in their existential contexts (Armstrong 2028). However, such ascriptions lack direct links to nature of illness about its manifestation and sustenance in society. Most societies ascribe justifications depending on the nature of illness and its effects on those who harbour it (Conrad 69). These cultural resonations give rise to diverse viewpoints regarding illness and its ravages on human beings. It is important to note that the perception of illness affects how people react to it in different contextual thresholds. For instance, illness evokes feelings and emotions that are reflective of cultural ascriptions and perceptions that underlie its existence in society (Hall par 11).

Another school of thought posits that illnesses bear social constructions that define how people adapt to them in different situations. Experts attribute this to the fact that human beings are social and interactive (Jutel 2269). In the course of interaction, they develop normative thresholds of behaviour and conduct about their settings. People tend to identify with constructions that reflect various social and cultural realities in society (London par 7). Most people assign meanings depending on how they understand and cope with effects on health and other crucial facets of existence in society. Social parameters are very important in defining how human beings view issues and events that occur in societal contexts (London par 9). Such thresholds of existence are integral in derivative and accretive processes that suffice about human existence in society. Human beings identify with meanings that reflect social and cultural realities within their contexts. Social constructions that define illness bear undertones from immediate social and cultural orientations in social landscapes (London par 10).

The third school of thought argues that medical and scientific explanations that define illness are not necessary derivatives of natural processes of engagement. Proponents of this premise argue that medical ascriptions reflect subjective interests that have no direct link to natural regimes that characterize such illnesses (Parker-Pope par 11). They emanate from researchers and scholars who seek opportunity for self-aggrandizement and individual assertion. This reality necessitates deeper foray into systems that govern development and propagation of meaning and value in society (Parker-Pope par 12). The significance of medical rationalizations emanates from trust and faith that people have in doctors. They respect them as custodians of medical knowledge and other issues that relate to research in that area of interest (Parker-Pope par 13).

According to Barker, the social construction of illness suffices through symptomatic manifestations that define individual reaction to the physical effects of illness (Barker 293). Experience and identity form basis for development and propagation of diverse constructions that characterize illness in social contexts. In the absence of such realities, it would be difficult for individuals to synchronize and demystify various explanations that embody social construction of illness in social contexts (Barker 296). For instance, Fibromyalgia Syndrome (FMS) manifests through complex symptomatic thresholds that make it difficult for individuals to decipher their existential parameters. However, people construct identities that relate to its developmental regime about sustenance and propagation in diverse contexts. (Barker 281)

To understand the social construction of illness, it is important to understand social and cultural avenues that characterize such undertakings. According to Zola, such constructions resonate through various ranks within social contexts (Zola 616). People usually ascribe meanings and perceptions depending on recurrent symptomatic and clinical manifestations of illness. Therefore, the social construction of illness necessitates a deeper probe into social and cultural dynamics that define its initiation and propagation (Zola 616).

Social constructionism is a pertinent area of expertise that offers alternative views on issues that characterize human existence in society. For instance, it creates new systems and avenues that propagate divergent ways of looking at illness and how people understand various realities around it (Pollan par 5). Social constructionists endeavour to demystify illness through the development of knowledge systems that augment desire for clarity, probity, and accuracy about illness and its ravages on society (Pollan par 7). The constructionist approach broadens social and cultural scopes that define illness in contemporary society. Through such efforts, social constructionists continue to influence policy within society (Pollan par 7).

Social and medical institutional entities utilize constructions as a basis for analysis, evaluation, and formulation of policies that anchor delivery of care and support for those who suffer ravages of illness (Pollan par 8). It is important to underscore that most illness identities revolve around clinical manifestations and symptomatic inclination. This means that most people ascribe meaning to illnesses depending on outward signs that afflict those who suffer its effects (Zola 620). To understand the social construction of illness, it is necessary to institute explorative foray into the social dichotomy of illness. This area elucidates various social realities that suffice about illness and its attendant ravages. It is difficult to understand the social nature of illness in the absence of clarity on fundamental realities that characterize human existence in diverse social and cultural contexts (Zola 622).

The social construction of illness relates to various perceptions and attitudes that define how people react to its existence in contemporary society (Zola 627). Experts contend that social and medical constructions of illness portend divergently and often contrarian approaches to essence and rationale for illness (Zola 628). However, social constructionists believe that most ascribed meanings and perceptions hold monumental relevance regarding human reaction whenever faced by illnesses. When illnesses strike, people seek to adjust to them through changing perceptions that define existence before such occurrences (Zola 629). Such adjustments give rise to perpetual thresholds of engagement that ultimately redefine human existence and interaction within social contexts. The social construction of illness emanates from recurrent socio-cultural patterns of interaction within society (Zola 630).

Armstrong, Elizabeth. Diagnosing Moral Disorder: The Discovery and Evolution of Fatal Alcohol Syndrome. Soc. Sci. Med 47.12 (1998): 2025-2042. Print.

Barker, Kristin. Self-Help Literature and the Making of an Illness Identity: The Case of Fibromyalgia Syndrome (FMS). Social Problems 49.3 (2002): 279-300. Print.

Conrad, Peter and Barker Kristin. The Social Construction of Illness: Key Insights and Policy Implications. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour 51.10 (2010): 67-79. Print.

Hall, Stephen. “The Short of It.” The New York Times 2005. Print.

Jutel, Annemarie. The Emergence of Overweight as a Disease Entity: Measuring Up Normality. Social Science & Medicine 63.8 (2006): 2268-2276. Print.

London, Allison. “Disease and the Public Eye.” The New York Times 2013. Print.

Parker-Pope, Tara. “The Fat Trap.” The New York Times 2011. Print.

Pollan, Michael. “Big Foods Vs Big Insurance.” The New York Times 2009. Print.

Zola, Irving. Culture and Symptoms: An Analysis of Patient’s Presenting Complaints. American Sociological Review 31.5 (1966): 615-630. Print.

"How War Fuels Poverty" Article by McCarthy
Equal Society: Antebellum Feminism, Temperance, and Abolition
Societal and Situational Deviance
Social Equality and Economic Growth
Why Does Everyone Want to Move to US?
Argument Against Monogamy
Diana Mehta: "Rape Culture" at University of Ottawa
Weddings, Marriage, and Money in the UAE
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, May 13). Social Construction of Illness. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-construction-of-illness/

"Social Construction of Illness." IvyPanda , 13 May 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/social-construction-of-illness/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Social Construction of Illness'. 13 May.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Social Construction of Illness." May 13, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-construction-of-illness/.

1. IvyPanda . "Social Construction of Illness." May 13, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-construction-of-illness/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Social Construction of Illness." May 13, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-construction-of-illness/.

Chapter 11: Marriage, Family, and Health

The social construction of health, learning outcomes.

Explain the cultural significance and social construction of health
Apply functionalist, conflict theorist, and symbolic interactionist perspectives to health issues

Medical sociology is the systematic study of how humans manage issues of health and illness, disease and disorders, and healthcare for both the sick and the healthy. In this section, you’ll learn about the importance of medical practices and how the social construction of health explains how society both shapes medical ideas and is shaped by them.

This is a zoomed in photo on a pile of prescription medications.

The Cultural Significance of Health

If sociology is the systematic study of human behavior in society, medical sociology is the systematic study of how humans manage issues of health and illness, disease and disorders, and healthcare for both the sick and the healthy. Medical sociologists study the physical, mental, and social components of health and illness. Major topics for medical sociologists include the doctor/patient relationship and power dynamics within the relationship, the structure and socioeconomics of healthcare, unequal access to healthcare (what is often referred to as health inequality), and how culture impacts attitudes toward specific diseases, conditions, and wellness.

The social construction of health is a major research topic within medical sociology. At first glance, the concept of a social construction of health does not seem to make sense. After all, if disease is a measurable, physiological problem, then there can be no question of socially constructing disease, right? Well, it’s not that simple. The idea of the social construction of health emphasizes the socio-cultural aspects of the discipline’s approach to physical, objectively definable phenomena. Sociologists Peter Conrad and Kristin Barker (2010) offer a comprehensive framework for understanding the major findings of the last fifty years of development in this concept. Their summary categorizes the findings in the field under three subheadings: the cultural meaning of illness, the social construction of the illness experience, and the social construction of medical knowledge.

The Cultural Meaning of Illness

Many medical sociologists contend that illnesses have both a biological and an experiential component, and that these components exist independently of and external to each other. Our culture, not our biology, dictates which illnesses are stigmatized and which are not, which are considered disabilities and which are not, and which are deemed contestable (meaning some medical professionals may find the existence of this ailment questionable) as opposed to definitive (illnesses that are unquestionably recognized in the medical profession) in the medical field (Conrad and Barker, 2010).

For instance, sociologist Erving Goffman (1963) described how social stigmas hinder individuals from fully integrating into society. In essence, Goffman (1963) suggests we might view illness as a stigma that can push others to view the ill individual in an undesirable manner. The stigmatization of illness often has the greatest effect on the patient and the kind of care they receive. Many contend that our society and even our healthcare institutions discriminate against certain diseases—like mental disorders, AIDS, venereal diseases, and skin disorders (Sartorius, 2007). Facilities for these diseases may be sub-par relative to facilities aimed at addressing and alleviating other conditions; they may be segregated from other healthcare areas or relegated to a poorer environment. The stigma attached to a specific condition may keep people from seeking help for such conditions, consequently being detrimental to the individual’s and society’s well-being.

Contested illnesses are those that are questioned or questionable by a fraction of medical professionals. Disorders like fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue syndrome may be either true, objective, and tangible illnesses or, as argued by some medical professionals, may exist only in patients’ heads. This dynamic can affect how a patient seeks treatment and what kind of treatment they receive.

The Sick Role

Sick role is a term used in medical sociology regarding sickness and the rights and obligations of the affected. It is a concept created by the American sociologist Talcott Parsons in 1951. Parsons argued that the best way to understand illness sociologically is to view it as a form of deviance that disturbs the social functioning of society. The general idea is that the individual who has fallen ill is not only physically sick, but now adheres to the specifically patterned social role of being sick. “Being Sick” is not simply a “condition”; it contains within itself customary rights and obligations based on the social norms that surround it, and therefore plays a role in everyday, normative interactions.

Parsons’ theory outlined two rights of a sick person along with two obligations. The sick person’s rights are: being exempt from normal social roles, and not being responsible for their condition. Conversely, the sick person’s obligations include trying to get well and cooperating with medical professionals.

The Social Construction of the Illness Experience

The idea of the social construction of the illness experience is based on the concept of reality as a social construction. In other words, there is no objective reality; there are only individual perceptions of it, which are always relative and involve a process of construction. The social construction of the illness experience addresses the way some patients control the manner in which they reveal their diseases, and the lifestyle adaptations patients develop to cope with their illnesses.

A chart of numerical pain levels ranging from 0 to 10 is shown here. 0 being 'No pain', and 10 being 'Excruciating pain'.

Figure 1. The Mosby pain rating scale helps health care providers assess an individual’s level of pain. What might a symbolic interactionist observe about this method? (Photo courtesy of wrestlingentropy/flickr)

In terms of constructing the illness experience, culture and individual personality both play a significant role. For some people, a long-term illness can have the effect of making their world smaller, leading to a life that is more defined by the illness than by anything else. Their illness becomes their marker, or their focal status. For others, illness can be a chance for discovery, for re-imagining a new self (Conrad and Barker, 2007). Culture plays a substantial role in how an individual experiences illness. Widespread diseases like AIDS or breast cancer have specific cultural markers that have changed over the years and that govern how individuals—and society—view both the condition and the individual directly affected by the condition.

Today, many institutions of wellness acknowledge the degree to which individual perceptions shape the nature of health and illness. Regarding physical activity, for instance, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends that individuals use a standard level of exertion to assess their physical activity. This Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) gives a more complete view of an individual’s actual exertion level, since heart rate or pulse measurements may be affected by medication or other factors (Centers for Disease Control, 2011). Similarly, many medical professionals use a comparable, somewhat universal scale for perceived pain to help determine pain management strategies.

The Social Construction of Medical Knowledge

Conrad and Barker show how medical knowledge is socially constructed; that is, it can both reflect and reproduce inequalities in gender, class, race, and ethnicity. Conrad and Barker (2011) use the example of the social construction of women’s health and how medical knowledge has changed significantly in the course of a few generations. For instance, in the early nineteenth century, pregnant women were discouraged from driving or dancing for fear of harming the unborn child, much as they are discouraged, with more valid and evidence-based reason, from smoking or drinking alcohol today.

Has Breast Cancer Awareness Gone Too Far?

Figure 2. Pink ribbons are a ubiquitous reminder of breast cancer. But do pink ribbon chocolates do anything to eradicate the disease? (Photo courtesy of wishuponacupcake/Wikimedia Commons)

Every October, the world turns pink. Football and baseball players wear pink accessories. Skyscrapers and large public buildings are lit with pink lights at night. Shoppers can choose from a huge array of pink products. In 2014, people wanting to support the fight against breast cancer could purchase any of the following pink products: KitchenAid mixers, Master Lock padlocks and bike chains, Wilson tennis rackets, Fiat cars, and Smith & Wesson handguns. You read that correctly. The goal of all these pink products is to raise awareness and money for breast cancer. However, the relentless creep of pink has many people wondering if the pink marketing juggernaut has gone too far.

Pink has been associated with breast cancer since 1991, when the Susan G. Komen Foundation handed out pink ribbons at its 1991 Race for the Cure event. Since then, the pink ribbon has appeared on countless products, and then by extension, the color pink has come to represent support for a cure of the disease. No one can argue about the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s mission—to find a cure for breast cancer—or the fact that the group has raised millions of dollars for research and care. However, some people question if, or how much, all these products really help in the fight against breast cancer (Begos, 2011).

The advocacy group Breast Cancer Action (BCA) position themselves as watchdogs of other agencies fighting breast cancer. They accept no funding from entities, like those in the pharmaceutical industry, with potential profit connections to this health industry. They’ve developed a trademarked “Think Before You Pink” campaign to provoke consumer questioning of the end contributions made to breast cancer by companies hawking pink wares. They do not advise against “pink” purchases; they just want consumers to be informed about how much money is involved, where it comes from, and where it will go. For instance, what percentage of each purchase goes to breast cancer causes? BCA does not judge how much is enough, but it informs customers and then encourages them to consider whether they feel the amount is enough (Think Before You Pink, 2012).

BCA also suggests that consumers make sure that the product they are buying does not actually contribute to breast cancer, a phenomenon they call “pinkwashing.” This issue made national headlines in 2010, when the Susan G. Komen Foundation partnered with Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) on a promotion called “Buckets for the Cure.” For every bucket of grilled or regular fried chicken, KFC would donate fifty cents to the Komen Foundation, with the goal of reaching 8 million dollars: the largest single donation received by the foundation. However, some critics saw the partnership as an unholy alliance. Higher body fat and eating fatty foods has been linked to increased cancer risks, and detractors, including BCA, called the Komen Foundation out on this apparent contradiction. Komen’s response was that the program did a great deal to raise awareness in low-income communities, where Komen previously had little outreach (Hutchison, 2010), therefore justifying their seemingly contradictory goals.

What do you think? Are fundraising and awareness important enough to trump issues of health? What other examples of “pinkwashing” can you think of?

Further Research

Visit the Humanology Project website , which works to shift common perceptions and misconceptions about illnesses.

Think It Over

Pick a common illness and describe which parts of it are medically constructed, and which parts are socially constructed.
What diseases are the most stigmatized? Which are the least? Is this different in different cultures or social classes?

Theoretical Perspectives on Health and Medicine

Each of the three major sociological theoretical perspectives approach the topics of health, illness, and medicine differently. You may prefer just one of the theories that follow, or you may find that combining theories and perspectives provides a fuller and more accurate picture of how we experience and understand health and wellness.

Functionalism

According to the functionalist perspective, health is vital to the stability of the society, and therefore sickness is a sanctioned form of deviance. Talcott Parsons (1951) was the first to discuss this in terms of the sick role : patterns of expectations that define appropriate behavior for the sick and for those who take care of them.

According to Parsons, the sick person has a specific role with both rights and responsibilities. To start with, they have not chosen to be sick and should not be treated as responsible for their condition. The sick person also has the right of being exempt from normal social roles; they are not required to fulfill the obligation of a well person and can avoid normal responsibilities without censure. However, this exemption is temporary and relative to the severity of the illness. The exemption also requires legitimization by a physician; that is, a physician must certify that the illness is genuine.

The responsibility of the sick person is twofold: to try to get well and to seek technically competent help from a physician. If the sick person stays ill longer than is appropriate (malingers), they may be stigmatized.

Parsons argues that since the sick are unable to fulfill their normal societal roles, their sickness weakens the society. Therefore, it is sometimes necessary for various forms of social control to bring the behavior of a sick person back in line with normal expectations. In this model, doctors serve as gatekeepers, deciding who is healthy and who is sick—a relationship in which the doctor has all the power. Moreover, medical providers function as dispensers of resources for the healing of the sick. But is it appropriate to allow doctors so broad discretion in deciding who is and is not sick? And what about people who are sick, but are unwilling to leave their positions for any number of reasons? (e.g., personal/social obligations, financial need, or lack of insurance)

Conflict Perspective

Theorists using the conflict perspective suggest that issues with the healthcare system, as with most other social problems, are rooted in capitalist society. According to conflict theorists, capitalism and the pursuit of profit lead to the commodification of health: the changing of something not generally thought of as an abstract object into something that can be bought and sold in a marketplace in order to create profit for someone somewhere. In this view, people with money and power—the dominant group—are the ones who make decisions about how the healthcare system will be run. They therefore control the degree to which the individuals and groups without political and economic power will remain subordinate. This creates strife within the larger healthcare system and also results in personal health disparities between the dominant and subordinate groups. The inequality that is seen in other spheres and institutions is pervasive in healthcare access, further accumulating disadvantage to already subordinate groups.

Alongside the health disparities created by class inequalities, there are a number of health inequalities created by racism, sexism, ageism, and LGBTQ+ discrimination. When health is a commodity, the poor are more likely to experience illness caused by inadequate diet, to live and work in unhealthy environments, and are less likely to challenge the system or its authority. In the United States, a disproportionate number of racial minorities also have less economic power, so they bear a great deal of the burden of poor health. It is not only the poor who suffer from the conflict between dominant and subordinate groups. For many years, and only until very recently, homosexual couples had been denied spousal benefits, either in the form of health insurance or in terms of medical responsibility. Further adding to the issue, doctors hold a disproportionate amount of power in the doctor/patient relationship, which provides them with extensive social and economic benefits.

Discrimination is often the result of stigma towards specific groups or medical conditions. This stigma is rooted in the perception of an undesirable condition or attribute. Take HIV/AIDS, for example. Because of their illness, individuals with HIV/AIDS have lost jobs, been denied educational opportunities, been kicked out of their homes, or have been mistreated (or not treated at all) by the healthcare system. [1] Most importantly, because of the stigma attached to the disease, individuals have foregone medical assistance and have passed away as a consequence. Legal protections have been put in place, yet the stigma and discrimination remain prevalent. Until we de-stigmatize the condition itself, and despite the implementation of policy, individual acts of discrimination will likely continue. HIV continues to be an epidemic in parts of Africa, not necessarily because of stigma, but because of the lack of available treatment resources.

While conflict theorists are right to point out certain inequalities in the healthcare system, and their critiques have propelled equity-driven policy, they do not give enough credit to medical advances that would not have been made without an economic structure to support and reward researchers, a structure that has typically been dependent on profitability. While this market solutions model has indeed provided many advances, a conflict theorist would likely respond that greater state-sponsored investment–with better public health outcomes as the goal—could also effect the same evolutions in treatment. Also at issue for conflict theorists and their critics is the degree to which the hard-won medical expertise possessed by doctors and not patients might render a truly mutual understanding elusive.

Symbolic Interactionism

According to theorists working in this perspective, health and illness are both socially constructed. As we discussed in the beginning of the module, interactionists focus on the specific meanings and causes people attribute to illness. The term medicalization of deviance refers to the process that changes “bad” behavior into “sick” behavior. A related process is demedicalization , in which “sick” behavior is normalized again. Medicalization and demedicalization affect who responds to the patient, how people respond to the patient, and how people view the personal responsibility of the patient (Conrad and Schneider, 1992). Under this perspective, as our perception of a condition changes, so do the social consequences of that condition.

An old engraving depicting “King Alcohol” is shown.

Figure 3. In this engraving from the nineteenth century, “King Alcohol” is shown with a skeleton on a barrel of alcohol. The words “poverty,” “misery,” “crime,” and “death” hang in the air behind him. (Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress/Wikimedia Commons)

An example of medicalization is illustrated by the history of how our society views alcohol and alcoholism. During the nineteenth century, those who drank too much were considered bad, lazy people. They were called drunks, and it was not uncommon for them to be arrested or run out of a town. Drunks were not treated in a sympathetic way because, at that time, it was thought that it was their own fault that they could not stop drinking. During the latter half of the twentieth century, however, people who drank too much were increasingly defined as alcoholics: people with a disease or a genetic predisposition to addiction who were not responsible for their drinking. With alcoholism defined as a disease and not a personal choice, alcoholics came to be viewed with more compassion and understanding. Thus, “badness” was transformed into “sickness.”

There are numerous examples of demedicalization in history as well. During the Civil War era, slaves who frequently ran away from their owners were diagnosed with a mental disorder called drapetomania . This has since been reinterpreted, unsurprisingly, as a completely appropriate response to being enslaved. A more recent example is homosexuality, which was labeled a mental disorder or a sexual orientation disturbance by the American Psychological Association until 1973.

While interactionism does acknowledge the subjective nature of diagnosis, it is important to remember who most benefits when a behavior becomes defined as illness or condition. Pharmaceutical companies make billions treating illnesses such as fatigue, insomnia, and hyperactivity that may not actually be illnesses in need of treatment.

Which theoretical perspective do you think best explains the sociology of health? Why?
What examples of medicalization and demedicalization can you think of?
Hiv.gov. (May 2017). Activities Combating HIV Stigma and Discrimination. Retrieved from https://www.hiv.gov/federal-response/federal-activities-agencies/activities-combating-hiv-stigma-and-discrimination . ↵
Introduction to The Social Construction of Health. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
Revision, Modification, and Original Content. Authored by : Florencia Silveira for Lumen Learning. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
Health and Medicine. Provided by : CrashCourse. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NGlENS1qgo&index=43&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtMJ-AfB_7J1538YKWkZAnGA . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License
Additional Content on Aids. Authored by : Florencia Silveira. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
Health and Medicine. Authored by : OpenStax CNX. Located at : https://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:X5DRDy9q@3/Introduction-to-Health-and-Medicine . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]
Colorful medication. Authored by : freestocks.org. Provided by : Unsplash. Located at : https://unsplash.com/photos/nss2eRzQwgw . License : CC0: No Rights Reserved . License Terms : https://unsplash.com/license
The Sick Role, The Functionalist Perspective. Provided by : Boundless. Located at : https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-sociology/ . Project : Boundless Sociology. License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
Relating social theories to medicine. Provided by : Khan Academy. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c8BCZd6GXU . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License
HIV, AIDS patients face discrimination. Provided by : ABC7 WJLA. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tm0j07lJUw . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License
Living With The Stigma Of HIV. Provided by : BBC Three. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiU8nQ_-q9s . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License

19.1 The Social Construction of Health

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

Define the term medical sociology
Differentiate between the cultural meaning of illness, the social construction of illness, and the social construction of medical knowledge

Sociologists Conrad and Barker (2010) offer a comprehensive framework for understanding the major findings of the last fifty years of development in this concept. Their summary categorizes the findings in the field under three subheadings: the cultural meaning of illness, the social construction of the illness experience, and the social construction of medical knowledge.

The Cultural Meaning of Illness

Many medical sociologists contend that illnesses have both a biological and an experiential component and that these components exist independently of each other. Our culture, not our biology, dictates which illnesses are stigmatized and which are not, which are considered disabilities and which are not, and which are deemed contestable (meaning some medical professionals may find the existence of this ailment questionable) as opposed to definitive (illnesses that are unquestionably recognized in the medical profession) (Conrad and Barker 2010).

For instance, sociologist Erving Goffman (1963) described how social stigmas hinder individuals from fully integrating into society. In essence, Goffman (1963) suggests we might view illness as a stigma that can push others to view the ill in an undesirable manner. The stigmatization of illness often has the greatest effect on the patient and the kind of care they receive. Many contend that our society and even our healthcare institutions discriminate against certain diseases—like mental disorders, AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, and skin disorders (Sartorius 2007). Facilities for these diseases may be sub-par; they may be segregated from other healthcare areas or relegated to a poorer environment. The stigma may keep people from seeking help for their illness, making it worse than it needs to be.

Contested illnesses are those that are questioned or questionable by some medical professionals. Disorders like fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue syndrome may be either true illnesses or only in the patients’ heads, depending on the opinion of the medical professional. This dynamic can affect how a patient seeks treatment and what kind of treatment they receive.

The Social Construction of the Illness Experience

The idea of the social construction of the illness experience is based on the concept of reality as a social construction. In other words, there is no objective reality; there are only our own perceptions of it. The social construction of the illness experience deals with such issues as the way some patients control the manner in which they reveal their diseases and the lifestyle adaptations patients develop to cope with their illnesses.

In terms of constructing the illness experience, culture and individual personality both play a significant role. For some people, a long-term illness can have the effect of making their world smaller, more defined by the illness than anything else. For others, illness can be a chance for discovery, for re-imaging a new self (Conrad and Barker 2007). Culture plays a huge role in how an individual experiences illness. Widespread diseases like AIDS or breast cancer have specific cultural markers that have changed over the years and that govern how individuals—and society—view them.

Today, many institutions of wellness acknowledge the degree to which individual perceptions shape the nature of health and illness. Regarding physical activity, for instance, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends that individuals use a standard level of exertion to assess their physical activity. This Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) gives a more complete view of an individual’s actual exertion level, since heartrate or pulse measurements may be affected by medication or other issues (Centers for Disease Control 2011a). Similarly, many medical professionals use a comparable scale for perceived pain to help determine pain management strategies.

The Social Construction of Medical Knowledge

Social Policy and Debate

Has breast cancer awareness gone too far.

BCA also suggests that consumers make sure that the product they are buying does not actually contribute to breast cancer, a phenomenon they call “pinkwashing.” This issue made national headlines in 2010, when the Susan G. Komen Foundation partnered with Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) on a promotion called “Buckets for the Cure.” For every bucket of grilled or regular fried chicken, KFC would donate fifty cents to the Komen Foundation, with the goal of reaching 8 million dollars: the largest single donation received by the foundation. However, some critics saw the partnership as an unholy alliance. Higher body fat and eating fatty foods has been linked to increased cancer risks, and detractors, including BCA, called the Komen Foundation out on this apparent contradiction of goals. Komen’s response was that the program did a great deal to raise awareness in low-income communities, where Komen previously had little outreach (Hutchison 2010).

What do you think? Are fundraising and awareness important enough to trump issues of health? What other examples of “pinkwashing” can you think of?

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

Authors: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang
Publisher/website: OpenStax
Book title: Introduction to Sociology 3e
Publication date: Jun 3, 2021
Location: Houston, Texas
Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/19-1-the-social-construction-of-health

© Jan 18, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

school Campus Bookshelves
menu_book Bookshelves
perm_media Learning Objects
login Login
how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

Download Page (PDF)
Download Full Book (PDF)
Periodic Table
Physics Constants
Scientific Calculator
Reference & Cite
Tools expand_more
Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

19.2: The Social Construction of Health

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 164569

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}} % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}} % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

Define the term medical sociology
Differentiate between the cultural meaning of illness, the social construction of illness, and the social construction of medical knowledge

The Cultural Meaning of Illness

For instance, sociologist Erving Goffman (1963) described how social stigmas hinder individuals from fully integrating into society. In essence, Goffman (1963) suggests we might view illness as a stigma that can push others to view the ill in an undesirable manner. The stigmatization of illness often has the greatest effect on the patient and the kind of care they receive. Many contend that our society and even our healthcare institutions discriminate against certain diseases—like mental disorders, AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, and skin disorders (Sartorius 2007). Facilities for these diseases may be sub-par; they may be segregated from other healthcare areas or relegated to a poorer environment. The stigma may keep people from seeking help for their illness, making it worse than it needs to be.

The Social Construction of the Illness Experience

The idea of the social construction of the illness experience is based on the concept of reality as a social construction. In other words, there is no objective reality; there are only our own perceptions of it. The social construction of the illness experience deals with such issues as the way some patients control the manner in which they reveal their diseases and the lifestyle adaptations patients develop to cope with their illnesses.

In terms of constructing the illness experience, culture and individual personality both play a significant role. For some people, a long-term illness can have the effect of making their world smaller, more defined by the illness than anything else. For others, illness can be a chance for discovery, for re-imaging a new self (Conrad and Barker 2007). Culture plays a huge role in how an individual experiences illness. Widespread diseases like AIDS or breast cancer have specific cultural markers that have changed over the years and that govern how individuals—and society—view them.

Today, many institutions of wellness acknowledge the degree to which individual perceptions shape the nature of health and illness. Regarding physical activity, for instance, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends that individuals use a standard level of exertion to assess their physical activity. This Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) gives a more complete view of an individual’s actual exertion level, since heartrate or pulse measurements may be affected by medication or other issues (Centers for Disease Control 2011a). Similarly, many medical professionals use a comparable scale for perceived pain to help determine pain management strategies.

A chart of numerical pain levels ranging from 0 to 10 is shown here. A smiling face at level zero is no pain. Various numbers and facial expressions indicate progressively worse pain until a frowning and crying face is at level ten indicates the worst possible pain.

The Social Construction of Medical Knowledge

Social Policy and Debate

Has breast cancer awareness gone too far.

BCA also suggests that consumers make sure that the product they are buying does not actually contribute to breast cancer, a phenomenon they call “pinkwashing.” This issue made national headlines in 2010, when the Susan G. Komen Foundation partnered with Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) on a promotion called “Buckets for the Cure.” For every bucket of grilled or regular fried chicken, KFC would donate fifty cents to the Komen Foundation, with the goal of reaching 8 million dollars: the largest single donation received by the foundation. However, some critics saw the partnership as an unholy alliance. Higher body fat and eating fatty foods has been linked to increased cancer risks, and detractors, including BCA, called the Komen Foundation out on this apparent contradiction of goals. Komen’s response was that the program did a great deal to raise awareness in low-income communities, where Komen previously had little outreach (Hutchison 2010).

What do you think? Are fundraising and awareness important enough to trump issues of health? What other examples of “pinkwashing” can you think of?

Help & FAQ

The social construction of illness: Key insights and policy implications.

Research output : Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Access to Document

10.1177/0022146510383495

Fingerprint

Diseases Social Sciences 100%
Policy Social Sciences 100%
Social Construction Social Sciences 100%
Research Psychology 100%
Policy Implication Psychology 100%
Social Constructionism Psychology 50%
Perspective Social Sciences 20%
Constructionist Social Sciences 20%

T1 - The social construction of illness

T2 - Key insights and policy implications.

AU - Conrad, P.

AU - Barker, K.K.

PY - 2010/1/1

Y1 - 2010/1/1

N2 - The social construction of illness is a major research perspective in medical sociology. This article traces the roots of this perspective and presents three overarching constructionist findings. First, some illnesses are particularly embedded with cultural meaning--which is not directly derived from the nature of the condition--that shapes how society responds to those afflicted and influences the experience of that illness. Second, all illnesses are socially constructed at the experiential level, based on how individuals come to understand and live with their illness. Third, medical knowledge about illness and disease is not necessarily given by nature but is constructed and developed by claims-makers and interested parties. We address central policy implications of each of these findings and discuss fruitful directions for policy-relevant research in a social constructionist tradition. Social constructionism provides an important counterpoint to medicine's largely deterministic approaches to disease and illness, and it can help us broaden policy deliberations and decisions.

AB - The social construction of illness is a major research perspective in medical sociology. This article traces the roots of this perspective and presents three overarching constructionist findings. First, some illnesses are particularly embedded with cultural meaning--which is not directly derived from the nature of the condition--that shapes how society responds to those afflicted and influences the experience of that illness. Second, all illnesses are socially constructed at the experiential level, based on how individuals come to understand and live with their illness. Third, medical knowledge about illness and disease is not necessarily given by nature but is constructed and developed by claims-makers and interested parties. We address central policy implications of each of these findings and discuss fruitful directions for policy-relevant research in a social constructionist tradition. Social constructionism provides an important counterpoint to medicine's largely deterministic approaches to disease and illness, and it can help us broaden policy deliberations and decisions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=yv4JPVwI&eid=2-s2.0-79952279444&md5=aed1583c6bb1424901ef2ac50048d6a1

U2 - 10.1177/0022146510383495

DO - 10.1177/0022146510383495

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:79952279444

SN - 0022-1465

JO - Journal of Health and Social Behavior

JF - Journal of Health and Social Behavior

IS - 1 Supplement

What is the Social Construction of Health and Illness?

Post published: March 11, 2023
Post author: Stephanie Wilson
Reading time: 11 mins read
Post category: Learn Sociology / Subfields in Sociology

What does the social construction of health mean?

The social construction of health and illness refers to the ways our social world shapes the assessment, treatment, and collective understanding of various diseases and health conditions. It is important for health-related organizations to view health as a social construct because the assessment and treatment of diseases and conditions depends heavily on how those diseases and conditions are socially constructed and collectively understood.

For example, how is the experience of being diagnosed with breast cancer compared to having a sexually transmitted infection (STI)? What about the diagnosis of major depressive disorder? Or Parkinson’s disease ? Although there are biological differences that separate the experiences of each diagnosis, there are also cultural and social meanings attached to each condition.

The social meaning of a condition impacts how a person experiences that illness. The ways in which public discourse construct medical knowledge also impacts how society, and the medical institution, treats a particular condition.

What are the Three Main Components of the Social Construction of Health?

Peter Conrad and Kristen Barker , two well-known medical sociologists, summarize the social construction of health and illness into three key components:

the social and cultural meanings of illness,
the illness experience, and
the social construction of medical knowledge.

Below, I discuss these three components within the context of breast cancer and genital herpes to illustrate how socially constructed knowledge affects the way people experience health and illness.

Breast Cancer as an Example of the Social Construction of Health

Like all illnesses, breast cancer is socially constructed. Historical context is emphasized in sociology time and time again because of the numerous ways it shapes modern day life. In the case of breast cancer, the historical portrayal of the breast cancer epidemic in the media shaped the social meaning of the illness.

For example, a sociological study by Paula Lantz and Karen Booth showed that just as women began to gain more reproductive control over their bodies, popular magazine articles discussing the breast cancer epidemic began to emerge. Many articles, while admitting that the cause of breast cancer was unknown, suggested that delays in childbirth and other behaviors of “non-traditional” women could be at fault. The researchers describe this media portrayal as backlash against women gaining more power in society.

Gendered Representations of Breast Cancer

This gendered representation of breast cancer in the media affects the illness experience of women diagnosed with breast cancer in two direct ways. First, women may suffer a loss of identity through being told that their femininity has been jeopardized by their breast cancer diagnoses.

Second, suggestions that certain behaviors could be the cause of a diagnosis places blame on women who are diagnosed. This type of self-blame has been linked to higher instances of depression post-diagnosis . The power of social definitions to enhance feelings of depression while experiencing a diagnosis demonstrates just how powerful social constructs attached to health can be.

The behavior risk factors suggested in the magazine articles also actively construct medical knowledge. Any ideas communicated through popular discourse have potential to construct public knowledge whether they are true or not. This potential for media to distribute medical knowledge to the public was shown in a 1991 study in the New England Journal of Medicine .

The research shows that medical discussions in popular press amplify the diffusion of medical knowledge to the public. Based on these findings, statements about breast cancer presented as medical or scientific in popular magazines will be communicated to the public as such, therefore aiding in the social construction of medical knowledge about breast cancer.

Genital Herpes as an Example of the Social Construction of Health

The same ideas can be applied to the diagnosis of a genital herpes, a common STI. To address the social and cultural meanings of genital herpes we must, once again, discuss historical context.

According to a 1997 study by sociologist Robert Roberts , the herpes epidemic conveniently arrived at the same time as the sexual revolution. Despite research showing that it was not sexual activity but rather attitudes towards sexual activity that changed during the sexual revolution, the assumed relationship between herpes and sexual promiscuity persisted.

This simultaneous appearance of the herpes epidemic and the sexual revolution associated herpes with sexual immorality, attaching a specific social meaning to genital herpes. Because our social and cultural understandings of genital herpes assume sexual promiscuity, the experience of a diagnosis can be incredibly stigmatizing and shameful.

Many studies looking at the effect of stigma and shame on those diagnosed with such diseases have found evidence for negative psychological consequences. These negative psychological consequences present themselves in the form of distress, anxiety, lower levels of concentration, and depression. Because genital herpes can induce immense shame for those diagnosed, the illness experience is mostly defined by managing that shame.

Support groups online and offline exist with the specific goal to help those who have been diagnosed manage the shame and stigma. The need for these support groups is not based on the disease itself, but rather the social meaning of the illness that has marked those with genital herpes with a scarlet letter.

Medical Approaches to Genital Herpes

People managing the physical symptoms of genital herpes generally have two options to choose from:

the western medicine approach, and
the alternative medicine approach.

The western medicine approach focuses on antiviral medication that medical doctors prescribe to be taken orally.

The antiviral medication is meant to suppress physical symptoms and reduce the rate of transmission. The alternative medicine approach focuses on preventing outbreaks through diet, supplements, and stress-relief techniques. See, for example, Dr. Kelly Martin Schuh’s book Live, Love, and Thrive with Herpes: A Holistic Guide for Women These two forms of medical knowledge are based off certain social and cultural meanings attached to herpes.

Western medicine relies on the fear of transmitting a shameful virus to market their knowledge of treatment, while alternative medicine has used the idea of managing stress induced by social shame to market theirs. These two very different options for the treatment of the same disease are examples of how medical knowledge is socially constructed based on social and cultural meanings of an illness. In this instance, the social construction of medical knowledge is also influencing the treatment of the disease, once again, demonstrating the power of the social construction of health.

Why is the Social Construction of Health Important?

As harmless as socially constructed definitions may seem in everyday conversations, they create impactful—and sometimes detrimental—outcomes in real peoples’ lives. Just as the Thomas theorem states: “if men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.”

The Social Construction of Health and Illness - Thomas Theorem

The concept of social construction can be applied to other topics such as race and gender, but it is sometimes especially difficult to understand this concept when attached to something like health that seems so inherently biological, rather than sociological. For health-focused organizations, it is important to acknowledge the ways societal norms and values affect the meanings, experiences, and knowledge of illnesses so they can treat patients with the social side of health in mind.

If you enjoyed this article, you might also enjoy these!

Medical Sociology: Applying Sociology in Health
The Sociology of Health Care and Evidence-based Medicine
The Social Construction of Gender and Reproductive Health

Stephanie Wilson

Sociology of Youth: Celebrating Children’s Day

Sociology of Broken Homes and Deviant Behavior

Social Science and Halloween from Multiple Viewpoints

Rethinking Nigerian Independence Day: A Call for Progress

Exploring Applied Sociology Jobs and Career Paths

Practical Applications of Urban Sociology in Planning & Social Issues

social construction of health and illness essay

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Social Construction of Health

Learning objectives.

Understand medical sociology.
Explain how culture influences health and illness.

If sociology is the systematic study of human behavior in society, medical sociology is the systematic study of how humans manage issues of health and illness, disease and disorders, and healthcare for both the sick and the healthy. Medical sociologists study the physical, mental, and social components of health and illness. Major topics for medical sociologists include the doctor/patient relationship, the structure and socioeconomics of healthcare, and how culture impacts attitudes toward disease and wellness.

The social construction of health is a major research topic within medical sociology. At first glance, the concept of a social construction of health does not seem to make sense. After all, if disease is a measurable, physiological problem, then there can be no question of socially constructing disease, right? Well, it’s not that simple. The idea of the social construction of health emphasizes the socio-cultural aspects of the discipline’s approach to physical, objectively definable phenomena. Sociologists Conrad and Barker (2010) offer a comprehensive framework for understanding the major findings of the last fifty years of development in this concept. Their summary categorizes the findings in the field under three subheadings: the cultural meaning of illness, the social construction of the illness experience, and the social construction of medical knowledge.

The Cultural Meaning of Illness

Many medical sociologists contend that illnesses have both a biological and an experiential component, and that these components exist independently of each other. Our culture, not our biology, dictates which illnesses are stigmatized and which are not, which are considered disabilities and which are not, and which are deemed contestable (meaning some medical professionals may find the existence of this ailment questionable) as opposed to definitive (illnesses that are unquestionably recognized in the medical profession) (Conrad and Barker 2010).

For instance, sociologist Erving Goffman (1963) described how social stigmas hinder individuals from fully integrating into society. In essence, Goffman (1963) suggests we might view illness as a stigma that can push others to view the ill in an undesirable manner. The stigmatization of illness often has the greatest effect on the patient and the kind of care he or she receives. Many contend that our society and even our healthcare institutions discriminate against certain diseases—like mental disorders, AIDS, venereal diseases, and skin disorders (Sartorius 2007). Facilities for these diseases may be sub-par; they may be segregated from other healthcare areas or relegated to a poorer environment. The stigma may keep people from seeking help for their illness, making it worse than it needs to be.

The Social Construction of the Illness Experience

The idea of the social construction of the illness experience is based on the concept of reality as a social construction. In other words, there is no objective reality; there are only our own perceptions of it. The social construction of the illness experience deals with such issues as the way some patients control the manner in which they reveal their diseases and the lifestyle adaptations patients develop to cope with their illnesses.

In terms of constructing the illness experience, culture and individual personality both play a significant role. For some people, a long-term illness can have the effect of making their world smaller, more defined by the illness than anything else. For others, illness can be a chance for discovery, for re-imaging a new self (Conrad and Barker 2007). Culture plays a huge role in how an individual experiences illness. Widespread diseases like AIDS or breast cancer have specific cultural markers that have changed over the years and that govern how individuals—and society—view them.

Today, many institutions of wellness acknowledge the degree to which individual perceptions shape the nature of health and illness. Regarding physical activity, for instance, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends that individuals use a standard level of exertion to assess their physical activity. This Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) gives a more complete view of an individual’s actual exertion level, since heartrate or pulse measurements may be affected by medication or other issues (Centers for Disease Control 2011a). Similarly, many medical professionals use a comparable scale for perceived pain to help determine pain management strategies.

A chart of numerical pain levels ranging from 0 to 10 is shown here.

The Social Construction of Medical Knowledge

SOCIAL POLICY AND DEBATE

Has breast cancer awareness gone too far.

BCA also suggests that consumers make sure that the product they are buying does not actually contribute to breast cancer, a phenomenon they call “pinkwashing.” This issue made national headlines in 2010, when the Susan G. Komen Foundation partnered with Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) on a promotion called “Buckets for the Cure.” For every bucket of grilled or regular fried chicken, KFC would donate fifty cents to the Komen Foundation, with the goal of reaching 8 million dollars: the largest single donation received by the foundation. However, some critics saw the partnership as an unholy alliance. Higher body fat and eating fatty foods has been linked to increased cancer risks, and detractors, including BCA, called the Komen Foundation out on this apparent contradiction of goals. Komen’s response was that the program did a great deal to raise awareness in low-income communities, where Komen previously had little outreach (Hutchison 2010).

Key Takeaways

Medical sociology is the systematic study of how humans manage issues of health and illness, disease and disorders, and healthcare for both the sick and the healthy.
The concepts of health and illness are just as much a social phenomenon as they are biological.

Introduction to Sociology: Understanding and Changing the Social World Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

The social construction of health and illness

Cite this chapter.

Michael Senior &
Bruce Viveash

Part of the book series: Skills-based Sociology ((SBS))

33 Accesses

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

About this chapter

Senior, M., Viveash, B. (1998). The social construction of health and illness. In: Health and Illness. Skills-based Sociology. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-14087-9_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-14087-9_2

Publisher Name : Palgrave, London

Print ISBN : 978-0-333-66249-6

Online ISBN : 978-1-349-14087-9

eBook Packages : Palgrave Social & Cultural Studies Collection Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

How It Works
All Projects
Top-rated Pages
Admission essay writing
Book report writing
Cheap essay writing
Coursework writing
Dissertation writing
Essay editing
MBA essay writing
Scholarship essay writing
Term paper writing
Write my essay
Free sample essays
Writing blog

Best Sociology Essay Examples

The social construction of health and illness.

361 words | 2 page(s)

Medical sociology is the study of how an individual manages their health and the presence of an illness or disease. The topic of health as a social construct has been a common research focus among medical sociologists. Conrad and Barker (2010) examined findings from over the past 50 years in an attempt to provide a conceptual framework for understanding illness and disease beyond the physiological aspects. Their summary states that illness results from an individual’s social interactions, their cultural influences and the relationship between knowledge /power within the medical profession. The article stresses the importance of the subjective nature of illness as a social construct and its influence on disease management.

A lay person does not necessarily view illness and disease on this esoteric level. However, someone diagnosed with an illness associated with stigma, such as HIV/AIDS or STDs, would likely experience a sense of discrimination as it relates to their treatment. The same would hold true for those diagnosed with contested illnesses, such as fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue syndrome. The lack of physical evidence or findings to support the symptoms can dramatically affect the treatment of these conditions. The authors of this article discuss the influence of technology on the lay person’s understanding of illness given the access to information via the internet. In addition, the formation of disease specific support groups and the emergence of social movements such as breast cancer awareness.

Use your promo and get a custom paper on "The Social Construction of Health and Illness".

Illness and disease as a social construct has implications for changing clinical protocols and potentially influencing health care reform. Disease management can often result in a quick fix with pill or procedure. Within the social construct framework, there is a greater emphasis on the patient’s problem than the solution. Language can be a potential weakness in the equation. Patients can be intimidated by the language of medicine and may not often accurately articulate their symptoms. This becomes an additional challenge for the medical profession to address in their attempts to make the patient a more integral part of the process.

Conrad, P., & Barker, K.K. (2010). “The Social Construction of Illness: Key Insights and Policy Implications.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(S) S67-S79.

Have a team of vetted experts take you to the top, with professionally written papers in every area of study.

Order Now

The social construction of Health and Illness

Published Date: 03 Oct 2016 Last Modified: 22 Feb 2017

Disclaimer: This essay has been written and submitted by students and is not an example of our work. Please click this link to view samples of our professional work witten by our professional essay writers . Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of EssayCompany.

In what ways can it be claimed that health and illness are socially constructed? Refer to sociological theory in your response, and give examples from everyday life.

This assignment reviews the theory of social constructivism and its significance to Today’s social construction of Health and Illness , and how health and Illness are perceived and interpreted by society . This paper will explore different aspects to the social constructionist debate, on the two of the most important aspect such as “problematisation” , but mostly focusing on “medicalisation”. It will explore the macro-social factors, cultural aspects,the socio-economic conditions that could possibly be some of the fundamental aspects of the construction of both Health and Illness.It will also focus on analyzing the terminology and the etymology of the words and how it changed its meaning historically.

Introduction

A social vision of medicine seems to move attention to the promotion and information of health, on the social, cultural, political and economic health in terms of factors and variables in relation to each other without forgetting that the center is the individual. It is in this perspective that relational sociology intends to look at health in a post-modern reality in where the values appear to move continuously toward individualism systemic, a need for efficiency, a multiplication of the roles of the social actor.

Social Constructivism

I would like to start this assignment with an example of what social construction of health is. From the Iconic contents of the Iliad and the Odyssey, we can understand the significant knowledge of the Epoch on the ancient pathologies. Omer describes the fractures of the Femur, with very medicalised terms very accurate detail but most importantly he uses a very significant metaphor to describe the state of health as the joy and strive of Ulysses as soon as he spot a land like the recovery from an Illness.

Ulysses is a mature man , a man that suffered a lot but most significantly a man that depended on travelling , we can relate to Ulysses in our Modern and contemporary lives.

Ulysses comes back to not go back , so he doesn’t get recognized and not to recognize. The Return of Ulysses is the Journey , not his landing, like this the individual looks and strives for health as a definitive experience inasmuch as health doesn’t seem to be an ideal state but rather a construction, of a reality .

“The sociology of knowledge must concern itself with whatever passes for “knowledgeâ€Ÿ in a society, regardless of the ultimate validity or invalidity (by whatever criteria) of such “knowledge”. (Berger, P. L. and T. Luckmann ,1971.pp. 15), “To understand the state of the socially constructed universe at any given time, or its change over time, one must understand the social organization that permits the definers to do their defining. Put a little crudely, it is essential to keep pushing questions about the historically available conceptualizations of reality from the abstract “What?â€Ÿ to the socially concrete “Says who?â€Ÿ (Berger, P. L. and T. Luckmann ,1966),

The social constructionist debate is one of the most important in social science analyses of health and illness. It is part of a critical approach to biomedicine and biomedical knowledge that emerged in the 1970s. Many of the assumptions and values of the medical profession and biomedicine were challenged and criticised for being consistent with the patriarchal and capitalist structures of the society in which they were located.

From this emerged an anti-psychiatry movement which argued that much of what was labelled a mental illness was simply a social construction created by psychiatrists who acted as powerful agents of social control.

Diagnosing someone as schizophrenic for example, enabled psychiatrists to declare that person unfit to participate fully in social life. Diagnostic categories were called into question and the application of medical knowledge was seen as being political and not just a technically neutral act.

These ideas in the social constructionist debate have been applied to question the assumptions on which biomedicine’s autonomous and extremely powerful position in society is based.

There are several different aspects to the social constructionist debate, two of the most important are “problematisation” and “medicalisation”.

This approach states that diseases are not simply real but are products of social reasoning and social practices. Calling a set of symptoms “bronchitis” does not mean that a discrete disease exits as an entity independent of social context.

That is how medical science at a given place and time with the aid of laboratory tests and theories has come to define it. Someone with bronchitis will experience pain and suffering but the interpretation of it will vary between time and place.

In this sense then the idea of medical discoveries is misleading. There are no fixed realities of the human body waiting to be discovered. There are fabrications or inventions by biomedicine which implies that the disease was established through certain investigations which confirmed its reality.

It is indirectly related to social constructionism - it does not question the basis of medical knowledge as such but challenges its application. It draws attention to the fact that medicine operates as a powerful institution of social control. It does this by claiming expertise about matters of life which had previously not been regarded as medical matters e.g. ageing, childbirth, alcohol consumption and childhood behaviour.

Social construction of Health and Illness

Health does not qualify as a given, but a map and a construct generated by coordinating various points of view. As disease, health is a model, socially constructed, to interpret reality. So health, can be configured as an event, that the individual can use to interpret the world and relationships with the society in which he lives: a repertoire of signs that the social actor can use to interpret the social order.

So the disenchantment of the world, a result of erosion of traditional paradigms, leaves the individual alone, only to represent themselves in different roles in which he is called by many of the company.

The definition of health and the promotion of health itself exceeds the model, so to speak, ideal health, what which is constituted as the absence of disease: health becomes a condition which has an almost unconscious, seems coincide with the flow of life.

The disease, as agent that interferes with this flow, it seems revealing it as a lost condition. This model of the relationship between health and disease seems be that prevailing paradigms in medical and health facilities.

The logic seems to characterize the medical paradigms seems develop according to a complex system of different modes:

The first mode is the linear one in which a given injury causes a disease condition and treatment become a system in place to repair the damage had.
The second way is the individualistic : health and disease are determined by absence / presence of resources in the individual and care form interventions directed exclusively to the individual.
The Last is the a-historical : it ignores the interaction of the individual with his environment, its culture, its history, its social condition.

In this direction, macro-social factors, cultural differences, events external and extreme, the socio-economic conditions, the lack of a adequate social support, the relational environment against, are all, factors totally or relatively independent of the characteristics biological or psychological of an individual. (Canguilhem, 1988; Stern, 1927; White, 1991a; Zinsser, 1935).

The micro-social contexts and macro-social have a crucial role in the onset and evolution health status of individuals.

The networks of relationships can foster the creation of informal mechanisms of protection against disease and old age or, through the stimulation of collective action, can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the provision of certain services by the public sector.

Kleinman (1980) has proposed a distinction between etymologies: disease, which refers to abnormalities in the structure or operation of organs and systems, and that is the domain of the biomedical model; illness, which is refers to the individual perception of a state that has a negative connotation and that includes, but is not limited to disease; sickness, indicating the events that can become disease or illness.

The term illness should refer to the direct experience of sick, the experience of the disease, while the disease is indicated conceptualization of the disease by the physician. Therefore, there is a difference between being sick and having a disease, a difference that in the German language is perceived as Erkrankung and Krankheit, needed to introduce a further term, sickness, indicating the perception of the disease by part of the social non-medical.

Precisely in this perspective Young (2004 ,p.26), exploring the social construction of the disease, proposed the further specification by the term sickness, which does not seem to be simply an ambiguous term that defines the was among the biological damage and the subjective perception of the damage.

The disease-sickness is to be understood as in fact the process through which, in conduct of concern and biological symptoms, is given a meaning socially recognizable and, therefore, acceptable.

Every culture has, according to Young (2004), the rules for "transforming" signs of the body in the symptoms, to connect the symptoms in a model etiological and intervention.

The disease-sickness, then, seems to be a process for socializing disease and disease-illness. The same set of signs, for example, can match, and different types of diagnosis and therapy. Is the causative dominant model in that society that "decides" what kind of disease the individual has and what will be the appropriate therapy.

The disease-sickness, also determines the size of individual of the disease. But it is society that determines which symptoms pay attention, when it is legitimate to feel bad and when it is not.

The role of Medicalisation

Medicine constructs or redefines aspects of ‘normal’ or accepted everyday life as medical problems. Professionals tend to offer technological or biomedical solutions to what are inherently ‘normal’ aspects of everyday life or social problems. Medicine has become a major institution of social control and this has been related to an increasing complex and bureaucratic system which encourages a greater reliance on experts.

High-tech modern medicine has become increasingly dangerous to the population’s health by:

reducing their autonomy and their ability to cope with their problems;
making them dependent on the medical profession;
damaging their health by the side effects of drugs and surgical interventions;

The medical system operates in close relationship with the manufacturers of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment, and this relationship is not necessarily in the patient’s interest . ( Illich, I. 1977)

Inherent in the medicalization thesis are Marxist and Phenomological approaches to health and illness. This thesis considers definitions of illness to be products of social interactions or negotiations which are unequal because people do not have equal influence on the social construction of reality. Medical professionals are more able to define what counts as sickness than ordinary people. Medical professionals, therefore, have great scope for social regulation because if matters have to be defined as medical concerns, then health professionals have the authority to monitor, intervene and pass judgements upon them.

A common construction of the cause of disease portrayed in our culture , especially the idea that lifestyles are freely chosen , individualizes and obscures the way in which disease is socially produced.

The conceptualization of medicine as the application of ‘objective’,‘scientific’ knowledge to a purely biological body, obscures how diseases are produced in structures of inequality that are social that are mainly based on class, gender, or ethnicity.

At the centre of all sociological accounts of medicine is the argument that medical knowledge performs social functions independently of whether it cures and heals. Medical knowledge and practices are social accomplishments, and not the inevitable outcome of science or nature.

The sociological perspective on medicine seems focus its attention to the information and promotion of health, on the cultural, social, economic and political health in terms of factors and variables in relation to each other without excluding that the center is the individual. It is in this perspective that relational sociology intends to look at health in a post-modern reality in where the values appear to move continuously toward individualism systemic. The micro-social contexts and macro-social have a crucial role in the onset and evolution health status of individuals.

Albrecht, Gary L., Fitzpatrick, Ray and Scrimshaw,Susan C. (eds) (2000) Handbook of Social Studies in Health and Medicine. London: Sage

Berger, P. L. and T. Luckmann (1966),The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Garden City, NY: Anchor

Conrad, P. (ed.) (2001) The Sociology of Health and Illness: Critical Perspectives. New York:

Conrad, P. and Barker, K. (2010) ‘The social Construction of Illness: Key insights and policy implications’ Journal of Health and Social Behaviour 51(S) 67-79

Dausset J., La medicine predictive et son ethique, in Pathologie et Biologie, 1997, pp. 199-204.

Freund, P. and McGuire, M. (1999) Health, Illness and the Social Body. Engelwood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall.

Illich, I. (1977). Limits to medicine: Medical nemesis: the Exploration of health. NY: Penguin

Young,J.T. (2004) ,"Illness Behaviour : A Selective Review and Synthesis", Sociology of Health and Illness,26,1:1-31

White, Kevin (2002).White, Kevin (2002). An introduction to the sociology of health and illness. SAGE. p. 42. SAGE. p.42.

Our Service Portfolio

Essay Writing Service
Dissertation Writing Service
Assignment Writing Service
Coursework Writting Service
Article Writting Service

Want To Place An Order Quickly?

Then shoot us a message on Whatsapp, WeChat or Gmail. We are available 24/7 to assist you.

Do not panic, you are at the right place

Visit Our essay writting help page to get all the details and guidence on availing our assiatance service.

Get 20% Discount, Now £19 £14 / Per Page 14 days delivery time

Our writting assistance service is undoubtedly one of the most affordable writting assistance services and we have highly qualified professionls to help you with your work. So what are you waiting for, click below to order now.

Get An Instant Quote

I DON'T WANT DISCOUNT

Our experts are ready to assist you, call us to get a free quote or order now to get succeed in your academics writing.

IMAGES

The social construction of health and illness
Social Construction Of Illness
Essay on the Importance of Health
Social construction of health
Social Construction of Illness
The Social Construction of Health, Illness, Disability, and Models of

VIDEO

The Social Construction of Health and Illness
Examples of Social Construction of Illness
Social Construction of the Body
Health as a social construct
Chapter 19 Introduction to Sociology Health and Illness
What Makes Us Healthy? Understanding the Social Determinants of Health

COMMENTS

Social Construction of Illness Essay (Critical Writing)
The social construction of illness relates to various perceptions and attitudes that define how people react to its existence in contemporary society (Zola 627). Experts contend that social and medical constructions of illness portend divergently and often contrarian approaches to essence and rationale for illness (Zola 628).
The social construction of Health and Illness
The social constructionist debate is one of the most important in social science analyses of health and illness. It is part of a critical approach to biomedicine and biomedical knowledge that emerged in the 1970s. Many of the assumptions and values of the medical profession and biomedicine were challenged and criticised for being consistent ...
The Social Construction of Illness: Key Insights and Policy
The social construction of illness is a major research perspective in medical sociology. ... Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates ... Writing and Reading Breast Cancer in Cyberspace." Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness, and Medicine8:33-59. Google Scholar. Popay, Jennie ...
The Social Construction of Health
The Cultural Significance of Health. If sociology is the systematic study of human behavior in society, medical sociology is the systematic study of how humans manage issues of health and illness, disease and disorders, and healthcare for both the sick and the healthy. Medical sociologists study the physical, mental, and social components of health and illness.
19.1 The Social Construction of Health
The social construction of the illness experience deals with such issues as the way some patients control the manner in which they reveal their diseases and the lifestyle adaptations patients develop to cope with their illnesses. In terms of constructing the illness experience, culture and individual personality both play a significant role.
PDF The social construction of health and illness
• understand different definitions of health and illness; • evaluate the medical model of illness; • assess alternative models of illness; • apply notions of the sociology of the body. Introduction This chapter considers the social construction of 'health' and 'ill ness'. The meaning of the words 'health' and 'illness' cannot be taken
19.2: The Social Construction of Health
The idea of the social construction of health emphasizes the socio-cultural aspects of the discipline's approach to physical, objectively definable phenomena. Sociologists Conrad and Barker (2010) offer a comprehensive framework for understanding the major findings of the last fifty years of development in this concept.
Social Constructionism, Power, and Understanding the Health Needs of
The Social Construction of Reality by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann , which ... how different groups in a given society construct notions of health and illness can be used to critique the existing systems. Moreover, examining how different groups engage with these systems, how they are affected by them, and the barriers which exist in ...
The Social Construction of Illness: Key Insights and Policy ...
approach to illness, and we present some of the key. findings of social constructionism organized under three themes: the cultural meaning of illness, the illness experience as socially constructed, and med. ical knowledge as socially constructed. In addition, we address central policy implications of these.
The social construction of illness: Key insights and policy implications
The social construction of illness is a major research perspective in medical sociology. This article traces the roots of this perspective and presents three overarching constructionist findings. First, some illnesses are particularly embedded with cultural meaning—which is not directly derived from the nature of the condition—that shapes how society responds to those afflicted and ...
The Social Construction Of Illness
The Social Construction Of Illness. History shows that our understanding of health and illness is variable. The way that a society views and interprets an illness deviates from the raw, natural interpretation made by biologists and physicians. It is believed that illness, a social phenomenon, is created out of disease, a biological phenomenon ...
The social construction of illness: Key insights and policy
T1 - The social construction of illness. T2 - Key insights and policy implications. AU - Conrad, P. AU - Barker, K.K. PY - 2010/1/1. Y1 - 2010/1/1. N2 - The social construction of illness is a major research perspective in medical sociology. This article traces the roots of this perspective and presents three overarching constructionist findings.
Health and illness: Social and biological constructs
Health and illness: Social and biological constructs. Define both health and illness as social and biological constructs. Examine the ways in which both constructs differ in your answer make reference to health patterns in two contrasting cultures. The everyday absence of disease or illness is known as our health (Bilton et al 2002).
Illness narratives and the social construction of health
Illness narratives and the social construction of health. B. F. Sharf, Marsha L. Vanderford. Published 20 June 2003. Sociology. In this chapter we start with a brief overview of the social construction perspective its bases in rhetorical and communication theory and its application to communication referencing matters of health and illness.
The social construction of illness: key insights and policy
The social construction of illness is a major research perspective in medical sociology. This article traces the roots of this perspective and presents three overarching constructionist findings. First, some illnesses are particularly embedded with cultural meaning--which is not directly derived from the nature of the condition--that shapes how ...
What is the Social Construction of Health and Illness?
The social construction of health and illness refers to the ways our social world shapes the assessment, treatment, and collective understanding of various diseases and health conditions. It is important for health-related organizations to view health as a social construct because the assessment and treatment of diseases and conditions depends ...
Social Construction of Health
The social construction of health is a major research topic within medical sociology. At first glance, the concept of a social construction of health does not seem to make sense. ... The social construction of the illness experience deals with such issues as the way some patients control the manner in which they reveal their diseases and the ...
The Social Construction of Health and Disease
health research on women's health continues to be shaped by attitudes toward gender/race/class that can only be described as sexist, racist, and classist. In this essay, we explore the history of the social construction of gender/race/class in Western scientific discourse in order to examine the legacy of these persisting
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF HEALTH AND ILLNESS
It is found that sociology of health and illness significantly helps in better understanding of people's concepts about onset of various diseases and its cure in a cross cultural framework. The sociology of health and illness has a long history. Over the last 100 years many concepts, theories, findings have been explored for the better understanding of health behavior of human being and the ...
The social construction of health and illness
Cite this chapter. Senior, M., Viveash, B. (1998). The social construction of health and illness. In: Health and Illness.
The Social Construction of Health and Illness
The Social Construction of Health and Illness. Medical sociology is the study of how an individual manages their health and the presence of an illness or disease. The topic of health as a social construct has been a common research focus among medical sociologists. Conrad and Barker (2010) examined findings from over the past 50 years in an ...
Naming and framing: the social construction of diagnosis and illness
A typology of social construction, involving four combinations based on whether a condition is generally accepted and whether a biomedical definition is applied, is put forth, which detailed a series of stages in the social construction of a condition. This paper examines the social construction of diagnosis and illness in several ways. First, I discuss the centrality of social construction in ...
The social construction of Health and Illness
The social constructionist debate is one of the most important in social science analyses of health and illness. It is part of a critical approach to biomedicine and biomedical knowledge that emerged in the 1970s. Many of the assumptions and values of the medical profession and biomedicine were challenged and criticised for being consistent ...

Social Construction of Illness Essay (Critical Writing)

Introduction

Chapter 11: Marriage, Family, and Health

The Cultural Significance of Health

The Cultural Meaning of Illness

The Sick Role

The Social Construction of the Illness Experience

The Social Construction of Medical Knowledge

Has Breast Cancer Awareness Gone Too Far?

Further Research

Think It Over

Theoretical Perspectives on Health and Medicine

Functionalism

Conflict Perspective

Symbolic Interactionism

19.1 The Social Construction of Health

The Cultural Meaning of Illness

The Social Construction of the Illness Experience

The Social Construction of Medical Knowledge

Social Policy and Debate

Margin Size

19.2: The Social Construction of Health

Learning Objectives

The Cultural Meaning of Illness

The Social Construction of the Illness Experience

The Social Construction of Medical Knowledge

Social Policy and Debate

The social construction of illness: Key insights and policy implications.

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

What is the Social Construction of Health and Illness?

What does the social construction of health mean?

What are the Three Main Components of the Social Construction of Health?

Breast Cancer as an Example of the Social Construction of Health

Gendered Representations of Breast Cancer

Genital Herpes as an Example of the Social Construction of Health

Medical Approaches to Genital Herpes

Why is the Social Construction of Health Important?

If you enjoyed this article, you might also enjoy these!

Stephanie Wilson

Sociology of Youth: Celebrating Children’s Day

Sociology of Broken Homes and Deviant Behavior

Social Science and Halloween from Multiple Viewpoints

Rethinking Nigerian Independence Day: A Call for Progress

Exploring Applied Sociology Jobs and Career Paths

Practical Applications of Urban Sociology in Planning & Social Issues

Social Construction of Health

The Cultural Meaning of Illness

The Social Construction of the Illness Experience

The Social Construction of Medical Knowledge

SOCIAL POLICY AND DEBATE

Key Takeaways

Share This Book

The social construction of health and illness

Access this chapter

Copyright information

About this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

Best Sociology Essay Examples

Social Constructivism

Our Service Portfolio

Want To Place An Order Quickly?

Do not panic, you are at the right place

Get 20% Discount, Now £19 £14 / Per Page 14 days delivery time

Get An Instant Quote

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS