Argumentative time work for legitimizing homeopathy: Temporal reasons for the acceptance of an alternative medical practice

Abstract

In Romania, as elsewhere, there is persistent controversy surrounding homeopathy wherein various parties try to draw the boundaries of legitimate medical practice. The literature on complementary and alternative medicine features little discussion on the temporal dimensions of controversies surrounding these therapies, focusing mainly on the temporalities of the lived experience of treatment. Yet time is a powerful resource for challenging and gaining legitimacy. In order to capture the use of time as a resource for legitimating or contesting homeopathy, we advance the theory of time work by examining the rhetorical role of different temporalities in this dispute. We find that proponents and users of homeopathy appeal to temporal properties of treatment, such as the longer duration of consultation, and of healing, namely, a specific sequence of symptoms and reactions, stories of failed biomedical treatments followed by successful homeopathic interventions, and stories of durable efficacy. Critics invoke the temporal properties of science, especially a cumulative record of failed attempts to prove homeopathic efficacy beyond placebo, or to causally account for its putative effects. Argumentative time work also involves manipulation of temporal modalities, in which homeopathy is legitimized both through continuity with the past and through breaking away from the past, with an eye to a promised future. At the same time, critics of homeopathy invoke temporal modalities to cast homeopathy as a relic of an unscientific past. This research illustrates the value of "argumentative time work" as a conceptual tool in examining public controversies.

The Social Bifurcation of Reality: Symmetrical Construction of Knowledge in Science-Trusting and Science-Distrusting Discourses

“…In its original formulation, the concept of time work, understood as “one’s effort to promote or suppress a particular temporal experience” ( Flaherty, 2003 , p. 19), sheds light on how people attempt to control or customize various dimensions of time in diverse social contexts ( Flaherty, 2011 ; Dalsgård et al, 2014 ; Flaherty et al, 2020 ), from managing health care ( McCoy, 2009 ) to homeschooling ( Lois, 2010 ) or to maintaining long distance relationships ( Jurkane-Hobein, 2015 ). The concept of argumentative time work ( Ciocănel et al, 2020 ; Rughiniş et al, 2020 ) reveals legitimation tactics that make use of shared temporal expectations and valorizations to create plausible representations of reality.…”

“It Works for Me”: Pseudotherapy Use is Associated With Trust in Their Efficacy Rather Than Belief in Their Scientific Validity

“…But as Atwell et al suggest, having expectations of the perceived efficacy of pseudotherapies being fulfilled would increase the users' confidence in their ability to make decisions regarding their health (illusion of control), thus reinforcing the decision to use them again [9]. Recently Ciocănel et al have shown how the narrative of the apparent efficacy of pseudotherapies like homeopathy is the main justification given by users to legitimize their use [24]. However, the EPSCYT 2018 does not include a question on the satisfaction of previous use of pseudotherapies.…”

“…On the other hand, pseudotherapy use in women was associated with perceived health. Various studies have shown that pseudotherapy use can be motivated by negative experiences with conventional medicine, for instance: no improvement in symptoms, poor doctor-patient interaction and treatments' side effects [6,7,24]. This would lead to the search for pseudotherapies as alternative or complementary treatments, especially considering the perception of such treatments as low risk [8,9,23].…”

“…For these campaigns to be effective, it is important to take into account the psychological factors that induce belief in pseudotherapies' effectiveness, such as the illusion of causality [20,25] and the illusion of control [26] and show the mechanisms by which an ineffective intervention can be correlated with apparent efficacy [27,28]. The cultural factors that help to legitimize pseudotherapies and their use should also be considered, especially narratives about their efficacy [24]. Finally, it is necessary to note the differing factors associated with pseudotherapy-use of in men and women and the higher use prevalence in women [19].…”