Search

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]

The increase of chronic illness as a leading cause of death has given rise to self-care and expert patient initiatives. Caring for chronically ill people places a tremendous economic burden on the health care system, informal carers, the labour market and benefit system (Department of Health 2001, 2004, 2005). Thus, in many countries health policy encourages patients to become ‘experts’ in the self-management of their conditions in the belief that it will help save money and improve health and well-being (Wanless 2002). For example, the notion of ‘expert patients’ has emerged in UK policy and is pivotal to government plans to modernise the National Health Service (NHS) by linking patient expertise to ideas of empowerment, a better quality of life, self-esteem and a user-driven NHS (Department of Health 2001; Fox et al 2005). Self-management and expert patient initiatives aim to encourage chronically ill patients to become more actively involved in decisions concerning their care and well-being (Lorig and Holman 2003; Lorig et al 1985, 1999, 2001). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]