Cross-Legitimation Processes between Traditional and Alternative Medicines

Tuesday, 8 July 2025
Location: SJES003 (Faculty of Legal, Economic, and Social Sciences (JES))
Distributed Paper
Josefina AVELIN CESCO, Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios sobre Cultura y Sociedad (CIECS - CONICET y UNC), Argentina
Juliana Sol GELERSTEIN MOREYRA, Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios sobre Cultura y Sociedad (CIECS - CONICET y UNC), Argentina
Vanina PAPALINI, Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios sobre Cultura y Sociedad (CIECS - CONICET y UNC), Argentina
The aim of this communication is to understand the processes of cross-legitimation between Traditional and Alternative medicines. In Latin America, Indigenous traditional medicines (TM) are predominantly understood and regulated in terms of cultural rights for specific ethnic groups and as intangible cultural heritage to be preserved. In contrast, Complementary and Alternative medicines (CAM) are often regulated separately, and conceptualized in terms of prevention or palliative care. Regarding their usage, TM tends to prevail in localized contexts, generally among specific and marginalized ethnic groups, whereas CAM users are typically people from high and upper-middle socioeconomic backgrounds, living in urban environments with medium or higher education levels.

Based on extensive fieldwork that we have been conducting for ten years, we observe an assemblage of different medicines that share a subordinated position in relation to biomedicine. On one hand, TM holds recognition by international organizations and state health legislation, which paves the way for a number of CAM practices—especially those associated with neo-shamanisms—to also be included. On the other hand, the social recognition of CAM among high and upper-middle classes makes other healing perspectives more visible, allowing TM to move beyond community confines and reach a broader audience.

In this process, therapeutic practices tend to detach from the medical systems that give them their meaning and, sometimes, efficacy. Since this also involves taking into account their respective worldviews, that includes spiritualities, the ways in which different therapeutic approaches coexist become a fundamental dimension in understanding medical pluralism. It is therefore significant to recognize the risks of a folklorized multiculturalism, as well as to avoid essentialisms that deny the inherent dynamism of any medical system. Ultimately, conceptualizing pluralism from a sociocultural perspective implies understanding that individuals belong to cultural groups and are embedded in symbolic, social and political universes.