Deciphering chronic pain

Chronic pain is a problematic reality at least for two reasons. First, pain is a person's private experience, to which no one else has direct access. Second, chronic pain is lasting proof of a failure that questions the validity of actions and explanations, both past and future, of all involved. Because pain is a private sensation that cannot be reduced by objectification, it cannot, ultimately, be stablised as an unquestionable fact that can serve as the basis of medical practice and thus organise relations between professional and lay persons. This fragile factuality increases the work a physician has to do to decipher a patient's pain. The aim of this paper is to examine how physicians specialising in pain medicine work at this deciphering. Because of these characteristics of pain, physicians are forced to work on the elusive information provided by patients so as to bring into being something called chronic pain. When doing this they tap various, nearly incompatible, resources. I shall study the way these multiple resources are put to use by physicians as they form judgements about cases. By using as a field experiment two pain centres with opposite conceptions and practices, it can be shown how physicians in each centre determine patients' pain situations and formulate advice to them, how the characteristics of this work involve physicians in specific systems of relations with patients, and how these systems are related to dimensions of this work: either to a justification of physicians' actions or else to a confirmation, or realignment, of the initial doctor‐patient agreement.