To understand health communication in Ghanaian contexts and how arts are ‘activated’ in this sphere, indigenous ways of communicating health and navigating healing must be explored. I discuss these dynamics in two communities: Nkoranza, an Akan community, and Ga Mashie, a Ga community. Both communities adhere to a cultural imperative to ‘sell one’s illness in order to get a cure’. I argue that the ‘selling’ is health communication, while the ‘cure’ encompasses eclectic therapeutic options, including pharmacological, psychological and/or spiritual methods. These communities are also hypervigilant about risk in intimate relations, which is heightened during serious illness and complicates the imperative to sell one’s sickness. Indigenous healers navigate this psychosocial terrain creatively and subversively, aiming to ‘sell healing’ for all conditions. They advertise using multi-form arts, tell stories in diagnostic encounters, and incorporate artefacts and performance in healing processes. I will illustrate where ‘selling sickness’ intersects with ‘re-inventions of healing traditions’ in healing environments and signpost where specific art forms are activated in these spaces.

4. The aim of this chapter is to reflect on some crucial differences between the first and second editions of Psychoanalysis. Moscovici wrote the first edition during his ‘age of intellectual innocence’ when he knew only a little of Durkheim’s work; even the term ‘social representation’ came from Father Lenoble. He created his theory independently of Durkheim’s collective representations. None of the main concepts of Moscovici’s social representations were derived from Durkheim; instead, his main ideas contradicted Durkheim’s collective representations.

While in the two introductory pieces Moscovici expresses himself in Durkheimian fashion, the rest of the second edition follows the same path as the first. The major concepts of the theory, that is, objectification, anchoring, cognitive polyphasia, natural thinking, and communication, are discussed, although some of their meanings are changed or reformulated. Moscovici’s revision of the second edition has had major effects on the interpretation of his theory in several directions. It was the second edition that was translated into other languages and, therefore, it was interpreted in a Durkheimian way even though the concepts held by Durkheim and Moscovici were totally different. The root of the theory of social representations and communication between the two editions of Psychoanalysis remains puzzling.