Search

Domestic and family violence is a social and public health issue typically positioned in policy frameworks as a consequence of gendered social and economic structures. In this paper, we deploy an approach that draws on Hörl's neo-ecological thinking to propose that the home, as a site of domestic violence, can be usefully framed as an ecology of the domestic, a posthumanist hybrid matrix of bodies, spaces and objects in which various practices enact the smooth running of the domestic together with practices of domestic and family violence, including coercive control. Our interest is in coercive control and in the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic had on practices which enact this aspect of domestic violence. Our exploration of the practices that enact coercive control draws on the work of Law and others. We examine how practices, which are not compatible, or that do not cohere, are able to coexist in a domestic ecology and what occurs when there is a disruption as occurred with the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this brief paper, I argue that the coronavirus pandemic is functioning like an ethnomethodological 'breaching experiment'. In short, it is putting a gigantic spanner in the works of neoliberal governance, in the process exposing the widening cracks and fissures of what I have called the 'fractured society'. I begin by recalling Garfinkel's notion of the breaching experiment and by listing the principal attributes of the fractured society. I then explore the response to the coronavirus in the UK, from the government's initial commitment to 'herd immunity' to its present policy of 'muddling through'. The bulk of the remainder of this contribution addresses precisely how this global health crisis shines a harsh and unforgiving searchlight on the strategies and policies pursued by governments in the UK since 2010, and most especially after the passing of the Health and Social Care Act of 2012. In the closing paragraphs, I examine possible scenarios for a post-fractured society, making particular use of Fraser's concepts on 'reactionary' versus 'progressive populism', and conclude with a comment on sociology and engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores how masculinity may help us understand the varying ways political leaders are responding to the coronavirus crisis. By focusing directly on masculinity as a social process, this analysis contributes to the broader literature on gender and leadership, unpacking the gendered double bind that leaders who identify as men must navigate in acknowledging and responding to risks. I examine the responses of Justin Trudeau and Donald Trump suggesting that their respective struggles to acknowledge and respond to the public health threat were not simply the result of a lack of available information to inform rational policy decisions. Acknowledging risk and taking measures to prevent rather than 'fight' are not culturally neutral, they are coded as feminine and 'weak'. Clearly, the delay in the response and subsequent spread of the virus in North America was not inevitable, other jurisdictions were able to respond more quickly. The masculinity double bind may have been one of the factors that undermined a prompt response in the increasingly macho context of North America. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]