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

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

On the cutting edge of extinction

 It was late afternoon on the first day of the summer of 1900. Members of the oldest medical association in the United States gathered in Scott Circle in Washington, DC, with President William McKinley and other dignitaries. The Marine band played as the ceremony commenced to dedicate a monument to Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, founder of homeopathy. The occasion was unique in several ways. It was the first monument to be erected in the nation's capitol in honor of someone who had never set foot on American soil. Moreover, reports from the time indicate that the public in general had little knowledge of Hahnemann's contributions or understanding of his teachings.
 Apparently, the irony was not lost on the public. Six days earlier, the Baltimore Sun published an article about the monument in which random residents of Scott Circle were quoted as complaining about the statue: "The monument blocks the view of the vistas" and "Why should a monument be erected to a foreigner who never set forth on American soil?" It is apparent by these remarks that members of the general public were ignorant about Hahnemann, his contributions and homeopathy in general.
 Even the speeches of the dignitaries who spoke at the unveiling, reveal a surprising absence of understanding of the contributions of the founder of homeopathy. Rather, they focused on the aesthetics of the monument and the uniqueness of erecting one to a foreigner and to someone who was not a prominent soldier.
 Specifically, Col. Theodore H. Bingham of the US Corps of Engineers spoke about the merits of the monument dedicated "to a man of peace thus adding one more to its class" in a city of monuments of "men of war." (He added that the monument was unique because Hahnemann was not on a horse.)i However, remarks by dignitaries regarding Hahnemann's controversial system of therapeutics, his contributions and his life were absent.
 Following the remarks, the veil covering the bronze statue was pulled away and the air was full of patriotic song. "America" was played by the Marine Band and popular President McKinley rose to his feet and "with demonstrations of delight, saluted the beautiful work of art." The crowd burst into cheers. ii
 So as the sun began to set on that first day of summer in 1900, homeopathy in America had reached its high-water mark, as its founder was now firmly ensconced in the nation's capitol, permanently located between the White House and the Potomac.
 But behind the unveiling remained other facts that prompt a historical analogy between the setting sun and the future of homeopathy in the United States. The fact of the matter is that homeopathic physicians comprised a mere 20 percent of all medical physicians in the country at the time. Little more than twenty years later, only two of the 23 homeopathic medical schools would still remain, yielding a graduating class of a mere 63 students. Homeopathy seemed headed towards total extinction. iii
 At the time of the ceremony, homeopathy in America was about to self-destruct. Some historians claim that the reason for this was at the hands of the American Medical Association (AMA), which had been specifically established in 1847 to directly compete with homeopaths and other medical groups. Others postulate that homeopathy as a medical system was ineffective, and was overthrown by modern sciences. iv
 Yet, while both factors may or may not have contributed to the downfall of homeopathy, I will argue that the primary cause was an internal schism. The schism was between conservatives who strongly felt that homeopathy should follow the strict system of method and philosophy set forth by Hahnemann in the first decades of the nineteenth century, and liberals who believed that homeopathy was simply a system of therapeutics that physicians could either use or ignore as they deemed necessary.
 The ceremony and the fundraising efforts contributing to the monument were evidence of this schism. It was the liberals -members of the American Institute of Homeopathy (AIH)-who filled the seats that day at the ceremony dedicating the statue to Hahnemann. This was an irony, given that prominent members of the AIH had called Hahnemann a "straw man" and an "old and dead prospector." To further the irony, the majority of conservative homeopaths-followers of Hahnemann and members of the International Hahnemannian Association (IHA)-were not listed on the roster of contributors to the monument. I will pose that the monument gave the liberal homeopaths something to identify with because they had lost all the defining characteristics of homeopathy. The monument was an attempt to maintain appearances. The conservatives, on the other hand, who had adhered to Hahnemann's principles saw the monument as an act of hypocrisy and choose to boycott.