The Global Menace.

The history of medicine has gone 'global.' Why? Can the proliferation of the 'global' in our writing be explained away as a product of staying true to our historical subjects' categories? Or has this historiography in fact delivered a new 'global' problematic or performed serious 'global' analytic work? The situation is far from clear, and it is the tension between the global as descriptor and an analytics of the global that concerns me here. I have three main concerns: (1) that there is an epistemic collusion between the discourses of universality that inform medical science and global-talk; (2) that the embrace of the 'global' authorises a turning away from analyses of power in history-writing in that (3) this turning away from analyses of power in history-writing leads to scholarship that reproduces rather than critiques globalisation as a set of institutions, discourses and practices.