The state of history and the empire of metaphysics [Review]

One of the curious things about this challenging book is that its ostensible subject— the Saxon medical and political scientist Hermann Conring (1606–1681)— is not mentioned in the title. Constantin Fasolt argues that we cannot know what Conring really thought or meant in his writings, which means that his topic cannot be Conring as such and must instead be that which occludes our knowledge of him, the titular limits of history. Given that we do in fact learn a good deal about Conring from Fasolt’s book, we can only hope that the decapitation of its subject will be rectified in a subsequent edition, or perhaps by the restorative work of librarians putting together subject headings. And yet Fasolt’s decision is understandable, for Conring is indeed a stalking-horse for a much bigger quarry: historiography and the historical consciousness. By “history” Fasolt understands a way of imposing intelligibility on the world, which is founded on the twin assumptions that the past is gone and unchangeable, and that the meaning of texts can be determined by placing them in their historical contexts (ix). In challenging this mode of intelligibility, Fasolt is not attempting to improve professiona history—it’s already as good as it can be—but to displace it. He regards his work as a declaration of “independence from historical consciousness” (32). At the same time, Fasolt insists that he is not simply jumping from historiography to philosophy, or attempting to preempt history with ontology (37-39). That has been tried by Nietzsche and Heidegger, who have been tainted by Nazism (Fasolt thinks unfairly). It has also been attempted by modern philosophers from Gadamer to Foucault and Charles Taylor who, in failing to address the “violence” that its mode of intelligibility does to the world, have not succeeded in outflanking history. Perhaps, Fasolt wonders, it is only the personal experience of those who have been subject to this violence—the experience of those who have been subject to historical examination—that can break the spell of history. Fasolt’s disclaimer notwithstanding, in the course of these remarks I shall argue that he is indeed jumping from history to philosophy, or attempting to outflank history by subjecting it to a particular metaphysical understanding. I shall do so in part by sketching the recent intellectual history of this move—a historical examination that I hope inflicts as little violence as possible on Fasolt’s argument.

Sharing Narratives Online: An international, self-organising curriculum in rural health

The aim of the Rural Medicine Rotation (RMR) at the University of Queensland (UQ) is to give all third year medical students exposure to and an understanding of, clinical practice in Australian rural or remote locations. A difficulty in achieving this is the relatively short period of student clinical placements, in only one or two rural or remote locations. A web-based Clinical Discussion Board (CDB) has been introduced to address this problem by allowing students at various rural sites to discuss their rural experiences and clinical issues with each other. The rationale is to encourage an understanding of the breadth and depth of rural medicine through peer-based learning. Students are required to submit a minimum of four contributions over the course of their six week rural placement. Analysis of student usage patterns shows that the majority of students exceeded the minimum submission criteria indicating motivation rather than compulsion to contribute to the CDB. There is clear evidence that contributing or responding to the CDB develops studentâ??s critical thinking skills by giving and receiving assistance from peers, challenging attitudes and beliefs and stimulating reflective thought. This is particularly evident in regard to issues involving ethics or clinical uncertainty, subject areas that are not in the medical undergraduate curriculum, yet are integral to real-world medical practice. The CDB has proved to be a successful way to understand the concerns and interests of third year medical students immersed in their RMR and also in demonstrating how technology can help address the challenge of supporting students across large geographical areas. We have recently broadened this approach by including students from the Rural Program at The Ohio State University College of Medicine. This important international exchange of ideas and approaches to learning is expected to broaden clinical training content and improve understanding of rural issues.