The reluctant and the envious: Therapeutic subalternity and the practice of homeopathy in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work presents a neo-Gramscian theorization of therapeutic hegemony and subalternity, deployed with reference to the practice of homeopathy in North America by two increasingly-professionalized but unorthodox health occupational groups: Homeopaths and Naturopaths. Despite both occupations' contemporary sociopolitical subordination to dominant biomedicine, the continent's Homeopaths have been less successful in their professionalization efforts, owing partly to homeopathy-their primary therapeutic modality-being widely considered incommensurable with biomedical science. For Naturopaths, who increasingly align themselves with biomedical evidentiary norms, homeopathy represents but one among several central therapeutic modalities. Using survey (n = 588) and interview (n = 31) data from an empirical case involving Homeopaths and Naturopaths in Ontario, Canada-a jurisdictional outlier in which both groups are regulated by the state-the author employs the theory of therapeutic subalternity to illuminate the internal struggles faced by homeopathy-practising occupations in a biomedically-dominant context. Despite their regulated standing, Homeopaths' negative media characterization and ongoing lack of access to third-party insurance reimbursement contribute to ongoing frustration among practitioners, expressed as displaced envy toward the province's more elite, homeopathy-practising Naturopaths. However, while most Naturopaths express appreciation for homeopathy's clinical merits, many appear increasingly reluctant to use or discuss the practice to prevent compromise to their profession's therapeutic legitimation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".