Search

By analysing debates between member states of the World Health Organisation (WHO) over health inequities experienced by sexual and gender minorities (SGMs) from 2013 through to 2015 and 2016, this paper interrogates a WHO decision to 'do nothing', and the relationship between this decision and the production of ignorance and non-knowledge. This paper problematises state representatives' discursive practices regarding the lack of evidence on SGM health inequalities, drawing on the sociology of ignorance. Informed by the sociology of nothing, two analytical categories – non-recognition (omissive) and mis-recognition (commissive) of SGM communities – are proposed to critically understand the production of 'no-bodies' and the tolerance of the lack of evidence. The lack of evidence, rather than prompting WHO action, was used as a rationale for intentionally neglecting the health concerns of particular social groups due to their invisibility in health research. Therefore, the paper argues that the lack of evidence in itself is symptomatic of the existence of SGM health inequities, which require the WHO to take action such as formally expressing concerns about and endorsing research on the topic. [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]

Poor health and disease and the nature of interventions to ameliorate them typically generate opportunities and costs. What diseases are prevalent, which interventions are favoured and what factors fuel the nature of health interventions are recurrent concerns for political economists. This paper examines the prevailing viewpoints about what health policy works and what does not. Drawing on evidence from developing countries, it shows that there are many deficiencies in the prevailing orthodoxy which emphasises state, market, and civil society solutions. The paper suggests that health policy debate must be refrained around poverty and social inequality, constructs which are often subordinated to attaining grand ideological goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]