On the cutting edge of extinction : how the quest for modernity led to the erosion of identity in american homeopathy from 1865-1900- The monument

- On the cutting edge of extinction : how the quest for modernity led to the erosion of identity in american homeopathy from 1865-Craig Repasz (Craig Repasz)

 It was the AIH that formed a committee to begin raising funds for the monument to Hahnemann in 1892. By 1896, the chairman of the committee reported there was a growing interest in the monument from the homeopathic profession and adherents throughout the country. Subscriptions, or donations, had increased, a design for the statue was decided on, and legislation was introduced in the US House of Representatives. lx. lxi Both houses of the 55th Congress passed the resolution to erect the monument in Washington, DC, which was signed by President William McKinley. McKinley had been sympathetic to the AIH in the past, allowing them in 1898 during the Spanish American War, to enter the armed services with the same considerations as all other physicians. lxii (During the Civil War, homeopaths had been barred from the medical corps.) The AIH committee set the date of the monument dedication at their 56th annual meeting.
 Historian Naomi Rogers sees the monument as a device to close the schism. "Raising funds for the Hahnemann Monument," she writes, "was an effective way of drawing a disparate profession together. Samuel Hahnemann could comfortably stand as a symbol for both liberal and conservative homeopaths."lxiii In reality, of the old guard conservatives, the IHA, only 34 of the 124 total membership contributed to the monument. Compared to the contributions made by the AIH, which included more than 90% of its membership. The conservatives clearly avoided the monument. In fact, the monument was never mentioned in the main journal of the IHA, Proceedings of the International Hahnemann Association, either before or after the monument dedication. It appeared that the IHA boycotted the monument. Why would the most devout disciples of Hahnemann boycott a monument in his honor?
 By erecting a monument to Hahnemann the AIH was using "identity politics;"lxiv that is to say by, the close of the 19th century, American homeopathy, with the exception of the members of the IHA, had lost its distinct identity. The trends from mid-19th century had stripped homeopathy from its defining characteristics. As has been indicated, many of the AIH members had adopted a scientific identity and denounced Hahnemann. In the void, the AIH needed to construct an identity, or face total obscurity. By erecting a monument to Hahnemann, the AIH could maintain the appearance of being homeopaths. They could selectively construct their identity and memories around Hahnemann as an icon, rather than Hahnemannianism, a distinct form of medicine. The members of the IHA, on the other hand, viewed the monument as an act of hypocrisy rather than an act of memorialization, and wanted no part in it.
 The AIH dedicated a lot of time to the task of finding a working definition of "homeopathy" that met the then current needs of the liberal homeopaths at the annual meeting held before the monument dedication. Just five months after the dedication ceremony, Dr. W. J. Martin, an observer, wrote in the Hahnemannian Monthly, the medical journal of Hahnemann Medical College, that a lot of time was devoted to defining "homeopathic physician." The "tendency of the whole meeting," he wrote, "went to show that the term homeopathy is but a trade designation, and does not include adherence to the principle implied."lxv Martin was frustrated with attempts to construe a definition: "This definition-making episode has revealed a remarkable mental condition on the part of those who are working up these various specious definitions. It has revealed the sublimely ridiculous spectacle of a set of men-educated men, too-trying to fool themselves, trying to make themselves believe, by some kind of play on words, that a physician who does not practice homeopathy is, or may be a homeopathic physician."lxvi Martin felt the attempts by the AIH to create an official definition made homeopathy the laughing stock of the whole country. Such definitions were designed to fool the profession and construct appearances. Martin offered his own definition, which was a statement of the obvious: "A homeopathic physician is one who practices homeopathy. This is what a homeopathic physician is; this, and nothing more; but all of this."lxvii
 Regarding the monument, Martin claimed that it was odd to show a lack of homeopathic principles by the majority of homeopaths on one hand, "and yet the homeopaths have raised in the Capitol of the United States a monument resembling an altar, upon the base of which is inscribed the words 'Similia Similibus Curantur.'"lxviii
 The response by liberal homeopaths to Martin's definition was swift. The month after his letter the Hahnemannian Monthly, editors W.H.  Bigler and W.W.  van Baun replied, stating that his definition was too limited and not in accord with present usage. They drew a parallel with the term "Christianity." It is not limited "to those who practice Christianity, but mercifully extended it to those who theoretically believe in the truths of the Christian Religion."lxix The analogy meant encompassing all homeopaths from the most orthodox to the most casual, even if one's relationship to homeopathy was a mere affinity. Drs. Bigler and Van Baun claimed: "We can not hope to define a homeopathic physician until we can unanimously define homeopathy." They felt the definition of "homeopathy" was not defined by Hahnemann as the conservatives would argue. "[Hahnemann's] writings cannot be made to adapt themselves literally to the demands of present medical science any more than the letter of the gospel to the civilization of the present day, while they dare never lay claim to infallibility, as it has done."lxx
 The above passage defined Hahnemann and Hahnemannianism as an Old Testament monolith. Adherence was absolute and dogmatic. Bigler and Van Baun stated that Hahnemann was a pioneer; he did not set down homeopathy in its entirety. "Are we therefore, not to be allowed to seek to add to this treasure, and doing so are the instructions of Hahnemann as to the manner of working this field to receive no modification, no improvements from the advances made in general medical science?"lxxi
 Bigler and Van Baun pointed out how the business of defining "homeopathy" and "homeopathic physician" was very difficult because there had been no consensus for 25 years about the interpretation of similia similibus curantur. They stated: "There is plenty of work yet to be done, and science has put onto our hands improved methods and instruments whereby is can be done better, more thoroughly and more convincingly then ever before." They concluded with their own definition. "Therefore he who labors in this field, guided by the principle of homeopathy, is a homeopathic physician, not necessarily one who is content to use without question the methods and results of the labors of a dead and gone prospector."lxxii