Content area
Full Text
In an accompanying commentary, Colgrove indicates that McKeown's thesis-that dramatic reductions in mortality over the past 2 centuries were due to improved socioeconomic conditions rather than to medical or public health interventions-has been "overturned" and his theory "discredited."
McKeown sought to explain a very prominent trend in population health and did so with a strong emphasis on the importance of basic social and economic conditions. If Colgrove is right about the McKeown thesis, social epidemiology is left with a gaping hole in its explanatory repertoire and a challenge to a cherished principle about the importance of social factors in health.
We return to the trend McKeown focused upon-post-McKeown and post-Colgrove-to indicate how and why social conditions must continue to be seen as fundamental causes of disease. (Am J Public Health. 2002;92: 730-732)
THE MCKEOWN THESIS STATES that the enormous increase in population and dramatic inprovements in health that humans have experienced over the past 2 centuries owe more to changes in broad economic and social conditions than to specific medical advances or public health initiatives.1 The thesis gives center stage to social conditions as root causes of the health of populations. On the basis of new data and numerous revisitations, however, Colgrove2 tells us that the thesis has been "overturned" and the theory "discredited." Whither, then, the idea that social conditions require prominence in any complete understanding of the health of populations? When we turn away from "the thesis," do we accept an "antithesis" asserting that the role of social conditions is insignificant?
WHY SOCIAL CONDITIONS REMAIN IMPORTANT
To answer this question, we turn to a central element of the thesis. McKeown is frequently cited for the relatively small role he assigns to specifically health-directed human agency-- to purposive action initiated by medical and public health practitioners. For example, Colgrove characterizes the McKeown thesis as follows: " , . . the rise in population was due less to human agency in the form of health-enhancing measures than to largely invisible economic forces that changed broad social conditions."2(p725) In this construction, if social conditions gain explanatory prominence, human agency loses it. We believe this formulation needs to be turned inside out to assert that as health-directed human agency gains explanatory prominence, so do social conditions.
Our...