Poststructuralism and Empiricist Control in Health Care

Introduction: Empiricism as a Barrier to Knowledge

The claim that "empiricist control" functions as an impediment to knowledge development is an agreeable observation, one that is clearly articulated in Laura Dzurec's article Poststructuralist Musings on the Mind/Body Question in Health Care. Through a historical discussion of empiricism and its role in shaping modern science, Dzurec demonstrates that the determinist and definitive nature of traditional science has stunted humanity's capacity to improve and develop human knowledge. The observation that "science makes us" aptly describes humanity's increased dependence on traditional scientific frameworks. As Dzurec enumerates, traditional science and empiricist philosophy have constructed a world in which the roles and functions of people are limited, knowledge is role-specific and socially dependent — and, in effect, knowledge development is stunted.

One of the common yet rarely examined experiences of nurses is the dilemma that arises when a practitioner is confronted with the need to care for and be concerned about a patient, at the risk of being labeled unprofessional or "subjective." Being subjective is synonymously associated with unprofessionalism, wherein one's feelings are seen as overriding reason. While subjectivity in itself is not a negative characteristic, it is widely considered a detriment to performance in a medical profession whose primary discipline is science.

The Nurse's Dilemma: Subjectivity vs. Professionalism

An internal conflict emerges when colleagues disapprove of a practitioner's concern for patients, viewing it as a sign of excessive attachment that impairs objectivity and judgment — rendering the practitioner not only unprofessional but also ineffective. This tension is a direct consequence of the empiricist framework that governs health care, one that treats emotion and reason as fundamentally opposed rather than complementary.

Dzurec argues that empiricism is maintained through "dividing practices," a mechanism that compels individuals to define themselves according to the roles and functions assigned to them. This defined role makes individuals highly skilled in a specific field, but it also renders them inflexible and closed to the possibility of developing new skills or assuming new roles in society.

Dividing Practices and Their Limits

A look at the current state of the medical profession illustrates this dynamic clearly. Almost all highly educated practitioners are given opportunities to develop new studies and research, while practitioners with relatively lower educational attainment are relegated to tasks that — though fulfilling and relevant — are routinized and offer little room for self-improvement or knowledge development. This unequal treatment reflects the limitations that traditional science and empiricism place on specific groups within the health care sector.

The poststructuralist concept of dividing practices, as illustrated by this disparity, reinforces the influence of empiricist control in health care. By tying opportunity to credentialed role rather than individual capacity, the system perpetuates a hierarchy that limits collective knowledge development.