Rethinking Ontological Presentism in the History of Medicine in East Asia

If our understanding of beings and things in the present day differs from that of people of a certain historical period, how does the inherent ontological gap influence historical investigations of that period? This question is particularly important for the field of history of medicine whose actants (borrowing from Bruno Latour) include both human and non-human beings such as the body, medicinal herbs, and medical equipment. Referring to scholarly discussions on the ontological turn in anthropology and focusing on East Asian medicine as an example, this study examines this issue with the proposed new term "ontological presentism." According to Philippe Descola, a leading scholar in ontological anthropology, four modes of ontology-naturalism, animism, totemism, and analogism-have existed in various collectives of the world. Among them, East Asian medicine is based on analogies while contemporary understandings of beings and things have been dominated by naturalism since the advent of the modern era. Even though studies of East Asian medicine have faced this ontological divergence, few studies have examined and discussed this significant issue. Against this backdrop, this study investigates the question of what ontological understanding is premised in texts and among actants in the history of medicine in East Asia, and sinuses how historical scholarship can deal with this ontological issue. As a conversation between anthropological theory and historical investigation, this study makes an argument for how historians of medicine can be involved in the ongoing discussion of "turnings."