“Think positively”: Parkinson’s disease,biomedicine,and hope in contemporary Germany

Abstract

Narratives of hope shape contemporary engagements with Parkinson’s disease. On the one hand, a “biomedical narrative of hope” promises that biomedical research will help to transform this treatable but incurable disease into a curable one in the future. On the other hand, a more individual “illness narrative of hope” encourages patients to influence the course of Parkinson’s disease by practicing self-care and positive thinking. This article asks how these two narratives of hope interact. It bases its argument on an analysis of data from 13 focus groups conducted in Germany in 2012 and 2014 with patients with Parkinson’s disease and their relatives. Participants were asked to have their say on clinical trials for advanced therapies for Parkinson’s disease and, while doing so, envisioned their biosocial selves in the present and the future. Three “modes of being” for patients were drawn from this body of data: a “users on stand-by” mode, an “unengaged” mode, and an “experimental pioneers” mode. Both narratives of hope were important to all three modes, yet they were mobilized at different frequencies and also had different statuses. While the biomedical narrative of hope was deemed an important “dream of the future” that participants passively supported without having to make it their own, the illness narrative of hope was a truth discourse that took an imperative form: having Parkinson’s disease implied the need to maintain a positive attitude.

Keywords

biomedicine clinical trials Germany hope Parkinson’s disease

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abbott

(2014) Fetal-cell revival for Parkinson’s. Nature 510(7504): 195–196.

Barker

(2014) Developing stem cell therapies for Parkinson’s disease: Waiting until the time is right. Cell Stem Cell 15(5): 539–542.

Brekke

Sirnes

(2011) Biosociality, biocitizenship, and the new regime of hope and despair: Interpreting “Portraits of Hope” and the “Mehmet Case.” New Genetics and Society 30(4): 347–374.

Brown

(2005) Shifting tenses—from “regimes of truth” to “regimes of hope.” Configurations 13(3): 331–335.

Brown

(2015) Metrics of hope: Disciplining affect in oncology. Health 19(2): 119–136.

Brown

Rappert

Webster

(2000) Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Techno-science. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Charmaz

(2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London; Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Clarke

(2005) Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory after the Postmodern Turn. London; Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Delvecchio Good

Good

Schaffer

. (1990) American oncology and the discourse on hope. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 14(1): 59–79.

10.

Felt

Felder

Öhler

. (2014) Timescapes of obesity: Coming to terms with a complex socio-medical phenomenon. Health 18(6): 646–664.

11.

Gardner

(2013) A history of deep brain stimulation: Technological innovation and the role of clinical assessment tools. Social Studies of Science 43(5): 707–728.

12.

Gottweis

(2012) Political rhetoric and stem cell policy. In: Fischer

Gottweis

(eds) The Argumentative Turn Revisited: Public Policy as Communicative Practice. Durham, NC; London: Duke University Press, pp. 212–235.

13.

Herrmann

(2009) Policy Debates on Reprogenetics. The Problematisation of New Research in Great Britain and Germany. Frankfurt; New York: Campus.

14.

Hollander

(2004) The social contexts of focus groups. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 33(5): 602–637.

15.

Kitzinger

(1994) The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness 16(1): 103–121.

16.

Martin

Brown

Kraft

(2008) From bedside to bench? Communities of promise, translational research, and the making of blood stem cells. Science as Culture 17(1): 29–41.

17.

Moreira

Palladino

(2005) Between truth and hope: On Parkinson’s disease, neurotransplantation, and the production of the “self.” History of the Human Sciences 18(3): 55–82.

18.

Novas

(2007) Genetic advocacy groups, science, and biovalue: Creating political economies of hope. In: Atkinson

Glasner

(eds) New Genetics, New Identities. London; New York: Routledge, pp. 11–27.

19.

Petersen

(2015) Hope in Health: The Socio-politics of Optimism. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

20.

Petersen

Wilkinson

(2015) Editorial introduction: The sociology of hope in contexts of health, medicine, and healthcare. Health 19(2): 113–118.

21.

Postuma

Berg

Adler

. (2016) The new definition and diagnostic criteria of Parkinson’s disease. The Lancet Neurology 15(6): 546–548.

22.

Prainsack

(2006) “Negotiating life”: The regulation of human cloning and embryonic stem cell research in Israel. Social Studies of Science 36(2): 173–205.

23.

Rose

(2006) The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-first Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

24.

Rose

Novas

(2005) Biological citizenship. In: Ong

Collier

(eds) Global Assemblages. Technology, Politics and Ethics as Anthropological Problems. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 439–463.

25.

Wilkinson

(2011) Analysing focus group data. In: Silverman

(ed.) Qualitative Research: Issues of Theory, Method, and Practice. 3rd ed. Los Angeles, CA; London; New Delhi, India; Singapore; Washington, DC: SAGE, pp. 168–184.