Earticle

The present study focuses on role-associated asymmetries between doctor and patient within prediagnostic sequences in ambulant HIV-consultations. The main question is how the potentially asymmetric roles of HIV-specialist and patient in the prediagnostic process are interactionally constituted and modified during the joint interpretation of patients’ concerns. Analyses show that doctors’ prediagnostic utterances (PUs) and patients’ ‘lay theories’ reveal epistemic similarities; their embedding in the prediagnostic process further suppose the inclusion of the latter as a constitutive part of the prediagnostic process. Results will be discussed from the vantage point of epistemic and conversational asymmetries in doctor-patient-interaction. The data used for the analysis consists of audio-taped HIV-encounters and is sequentially analyzed within a conversational analytic approach.

Louis Hartz, in his The Liberal Tradition in America: An interpretation of American political thought since the Revolution (1955), established liberalism’s Lockean outlook as the only and predominant tradition in American political thought. The essential message of his book, provocative, if not explosive, is that there was an enduring and underlying consensus in the American tradition of political thought which upheld Lockean liberal values celebrating individual liberty, consent of the governed, general hostility and skepticism towards government power, and a fierce sense of social equality. Objections to the consensus thesis have accused Hartz of downplaying the exclusionary politics that they see as integral to the American experience. There are three main schools of criticism, one has its origin in the progressive era, emphasizing a revisionist approach; the second, rising from the tide of the New Left, took a new turn in taking cultural and social aspects into account; the third, and most recently, adopts a neo-consensus stand. To get a clear picture of American liberalism, it is best to go all the way back to Hartz and his critics to examine the diverse approaches adopted in understanding the term. This paper, drawing on some of Hartz’s ideas and refuting others, joins the various constructive criticisms on Hartz in understanding the liberal tradition in the American political scene.