Health Equity’s Missing Substance: (Re)Engaging the Normative in Public Health Discourse and Knowledge Making

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 247-258
Author(s):  
Adam Wildgen ◽  
Keith Denny

Abstract Since 1984, the idea of health equity has proliferated throughout public health discourse with little mainstream critique for its variability and distance from its original articulation signifying social transformation and a commitment to social justice. In the years since health equity’s emergence and proliferation, it has taken on a seemingly endless range of invocations and deployments, but it most often translates into proactive and apolitical discourse and practice. In Margaret Whitehead’s influential characterization (1991), achieving health equity requires determining what is inequitable by examining and judging the causes of inequalities in the context of what is going on in the rest of society. However, it also remains unclear how or if public health actors examine and judge the causes of health inequality. In this article, we take the concept of health equity itself as an object of study and consider the ways in which its widespread deployment has entailed a considerable emptying of its semantic and political content. We point toward equity’s own discursive productivity as well as the quantifying imperative embedded within evidentiary norms that govern knowledge making, and performance management regimes that govern public health practices. Under current conditions of knowledge making and performance evaluation, a range of legitimate action and inaction is produced at the same time that more socially transformative action is legitimately curtailed—not merely by politics, but by the rules of the field in which public health actors work. Ultimately, meaningful progress on a normative ethical idea like health equity will require both substantial philosophical content and an analysis of what is going on in the rest of society.


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 824-832 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie Michaelson ◽  
William Pickett ◽  
Colleen Davison

AbstractHolism is an ancient theme concept that has resurfaced in recent literature, and that requires informed and intentional use in order to preserve its utility. This paper provides a historical and conceptual reintroduction of the notion of holism as it relates to health, with the hopes of informing the term's use in public health discourse. It also addresses the challenges that a lack of conceptual clarity about holistic health imposes on public health and health promotion discussions. It describes how the use and conceptualizations of holism are shifting in health promotion and argues that failing to accurately define and delineate its scope risks diluting its utility for future health promotion applications. We address these two problems, and build an argument for a rediscovery of the theory of holism in public health and health promotion, globally.





2021 ◽  
pp. 136078042110494
Author(s):  
Des Fitzgerald

In this contribution, I present emergent analysis of a preoccupation with managing COVID-19 through border control, among non-Governmental public health actors and commentators. Through a reading of statements, tweets, and interviews from the ‘Independent Sage’ group – individually and collectively – I show how the language of border control, and of maintaining immunity within the national boundaries of the UK, has been a notable theme in the group’s analysis. To theorize this emphasis, I draw comparison with the phenomenon of ‘green nationalism’, in which the urgency of climate action has been turned to overtly nationalistic ends; I sketch the outlines of what I call ‘viral nationalism,’ a political ecology that understands the pandemic as an event occurring differentially between nation states, and thus sees pandemic management as, inter alia, a work of involuntary detention at securitized borders. I conclude with some general remarks on the relationship between public health, immunity, and national feeling in the UK.





Vaccine ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 32 ◽  
pp. A162-A170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samiran Panda ◽  
Aritra Das ◽  
Saheli Samanta


2016 ◽  
Vol 106 (5) ◽  
pp. 808-814 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derrick D. Matthews ◽  
Justin C. Smith ◽  
Andre L. Brown ◽  
David J. Malebranche


2021 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Holmes ◽  
Udo Krautwurst ◽  
Kate Graham ◽  
Victoria Fernandez

Science twines through many of the discussions related to hope for a return to normalcy within public discussions of COVID‑19. The framings of techno-scientific solutions for COVID‑19 are similar to those that are presented to address many societal problems. The messy scientific and regulatory underpinnings of this desired silver bullet rarely make it fully into view. Technoscientific-related hope and its associated affects can operate as a kind of “cruel optimism” (Berlant 2010, 2011). It can be an affective response to return to life as “normal” that is psychologically soothing, even as its enactment may replicate destructive social, political, and economic structures. Hope and technoscience thread throughout the interactions between journalists and health officials in the health press briefings in the first wave of the COVID‑19 pandemic. Technoscientific complexity that challenges the desire to return to normal is rarely brought up in Ontario and Nova Scotia public health briefings. But when it is, health officials in this zone of interaction balance explanations of scientific reality and caution, while attempting to not crush hope for a techno-scientifically mediated return to normal. As such, public health discourse obscures or tempers cruel optimism rather than directly confronting it.



2021 ◽  
pp. 175797592110617
Author(s):  
Stephan Van den Broucke

The growing burden of non-communicable and newly emerging communicable diseases, multi-morbidity, increasing health inequalities, the health effects of climate change and natural disasters and the revolution in communication technology require a shift of focus towards more preventive, people-centred and community-based health services. This has implications for the health workforce, which needs to develop new capacities and skills, many of which are at the core of health promotion. Health promotion is thus being mainstreamed into modern public health. For health promotion, this offers both opportunities and challenges. A stronger focus on the enablers of health enhances the strategic importance of health promotion’s whole-of-society approach to health, showcases the achievements of health promotion with regard to core professional competencies, and helps build public health capacity with health promotion accents. On the other hand, mainstreaming health promotion can weaken its organizational capacity and visibility, and bears the risk of it being absorbed into a traditional public health discourse dominated by medical professions. To address these challenges and grasp the opportunities, it is essential for the health promotion workforce to position itself within the diversifying primary care and public health field. Taking the transdisciplinary status of health promotion and existing capacity development systems in primary and secondary prevention and health promotion as reference points, this paper considers the possibilities to integrate and implement health promotion capacities within and across disciplinary boundaries, arguing that the contribution of health promotion to public health development lies in the complementary nature of specialist and mainstreamed health promotion.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document