Medical Histories student research panel

Edwards: My presentation was a research-in-progress (or RIP) style talk on the history of conversion therapy within Canada’s mental healthcare system. I specifically set out to explore how the formal and informal curricula of Canadian universities and medical schools both informed and legitimated this violence throughout the 20th century. Universities and schools have often presented themselves as entirely benevolent houses for knowledge despite their role in epistemological and bodily violence against vulnerable people. Getting to the heart of that hypocrisy and helping us all understand our responsibilities as knowledge-producers is just what gets my blood pumping!

Jones: My presentation explored the sociocultural and sociomedical implications of age-related baldness in eighteenth-century Britain. I was drawn to this topic because of its uniqueness, as well as its ability to promote new historical perspectives within well-developed topics like masculinity and aging studies. Plus, the joke: “I study old, bald men” never gets old.

Edwards: Because this was a very, very early overview of my project, I was really candid about the limitations of my primary sources. I included some survivor testimonies and general info re: changes in mental health science over the 20th century. That said, most of the presentation was about the historiography around conversion therapy and sexuality in Canadian mental healthcare. I looked specifically at the development of the mental hygiene movement alongside eugenics in Canada, as well as the development of behavioural modification theory from the 1930s-1970s. I also drew parallels between the mental hygiene movement’s claims about children’s malleability and the post-1970 resurgence in trying to prevent transgender identification in children (which are scarily similar in their rhetoric). Is this a continuity or change? Ask me in 2-5 years!

Jones: Due to the limited historiography on hair loss in eighteenth-century Britain, I had to explore a variety of secondary sources on masculinity, aesthetics, and aging. While this creates a solid historiographical foundation for my project, a comprehensive understanding of the sociocultural and sociomedical implications of age-related hair loss cannot be accomplished without an in-depth analysis of balding as understood in eighteenth-century sources. Interestingly, there is an abundance of explicit references to baldness in a variety of primary source material including jestbook, medical treatise, trial transcripts, and newspaper advertisements. These types of sources will be consulted to determine how men perceived their own hair loss and how society perceived it.

Edwards: I think the key takeaway from my research re: social construction and scientific knowledge is the role that education and educational spaces play in solidifying some voices’ value over others. So many of the subjects for these therapies were incarcerated in mental institutions or prisons and often struggled to be heard over the voice of scientific ‘knowledge’ about sex and gender. The inter-generational interactions between the theorists and practitioners of conversion therapy need to be questioned: how were these students brought onboard for what had to be disturbing and violent altercations with the bodies of these “patients?” Asking how practitioners justified the power inequalities and convinced themselves of their own benevolence should be unsettling for people working in all areas of academia today.

Jones: My research challenges the notion of “scientific knowledge” by reminding the audience that medicine is personal. Despite the highly theorized understanding of hair loss in eighteenth-century Britain, older men reacted to hair loss in varying and unique ways. The highly personal process of balding, considered in tandem with the highly personal sociocultural and sociomedical consequences of hair loss creates a unique response that is indicative of the not-so true nature of ‘scientific knowledge’.

Edwards: I think co-creation and working with the people involved has to be a massive part of this project (otherwise what are we doing here?). If you or someone you know has been affected by CT wants to talk about their experiences or give input on what they think I should be focusing on or producing, please send me an email!

I’d also like to include three huge thank you notes: the first to my supervisor, Tara Abraham; the second to Emily Wood for encouraging me to put the work in progress out there; the third to Catherine Ramey and the other organizers for these panels –this was a blast!

Jones: I’d like to thank my fellow panelist Matt Edwards for an interesting and thought-provoking presentation and Dr. Amy Milne-Smith for chairing the panel. I’d also like to thank Catherine Ramey for organizing this excellent opportunity!