One of the defining features of interwar medical debates in German-speaking countries was the remarkable popularity of holistic concepts among both experts and the lay public. Attacks on the allegedly too-mechanistic outlook of modern medicine were frequent and were often associated with calls to research and treat the constitution of patients rather than isolated causes of disease. This paper traces the rise of the new constitutional medicine, locating its roots in nineteenth-century medical science. The essay attempts to explain the increasingly antimechanistic outlook of promoters of constitutional medicine by relating it to the larger context of the politics of health in Weimar Germany, to concerns of medical practitioners over the rise of the welfare state and the popularity of nonlicensed healers, culminating in the widespread notion of a "crisis of medicine." Drawing on case studies of, among others, the Danzig surgeon Erwin Liek and the Vienna gynecologist Bernhard Aschner, the article distinguishes between rationalist and neoromantic constitutionalists and aims to demonstrate that antimechanism in constitutional medicine was related to neoromantic tendencies in art and other realms of society, while rationalists were concerned with making German men and women fit for war and the requirements of modern industry.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 39 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.