Search results

Matthias Leanza: Die Zeit der Prävention: Eine Genealogie. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft 2017. 978-3-95832-131-1

AbstractHow should we understand the relationship between urban environments and infectious diseases? This article addresses this question from three particular perspectives: that of the materialities of health, that of nature and that of networks. The first perspective analytically blends biological dynamics, environmental influence and social practice. The second perspective, mainly influenced by multispecies ethnographies, foregrounds the liveliness and unboundedness of cities. Finally, the third perspective analyses how health is drawn into the domain of security. The article argues that while globalization and urbanization are often discussed as having triggered the emergence and spread of pathogens, urban epidemics are not self‐evident and 'natural' consequences of these pro‐cesses. They do not fall neatly into universal categories of space, modernity or risk; rather, they are produced and shaped by a range of social, political, biological and economic sites and scales. Accordingly, the emergence of pathogens depends on its articulation through specific analytical frameworks. This article suggests that a critical focus on how infectious diseases manifest themselves differently in different local contexts may not only provide insights into the manifold forms of urban life, but also into the multiple, complex and highly political constitution of health.

Der Artikel greift mit dem von Heather Paxson skizzierten Konzept der Mikrobiopolitik eine biopolitische Rezeptionslinie innerhalb des Fächerkanons der Kulturanthropologie und Europäischen Ethnologie auf, um zu hinterfragen, welche Praktiken und Politiken sich auf den regulierenden Eingriff in die Interaktionsbeziehung zwischen Menschen und Mikroben gründen. Die Idee der Mikrobiopolitik knüpft an naturwissenschaftliche sowie ethnografische Befunde an, die den Beitrag von Mikroorganismen zu Prozessen von Krankheit und Gesundheit, Evolution, Körpern und Körperpraktiken fokussieren. Basierend auf der Annahme, dass Viren und Menschen in enger wechselseitiger Beziehung zueinander stehen, wird das Beispiel der Influenza-Viren herangezogen, um zu diskutieren, auf welche Weise Viren an der Gestaltung des menschlichen Körpers sowie der Produktion von wissenschaftlichem Wissen beteiligt sind. Im Vergleich zwischen Mikrobiopolitik und Biopolitik zeigt sich, dass beide Perspektiven von der Prämisse ausgehen, dass Lebens- und Körperprozesse zum Gegenstand von Macht- und Wissensordnungen werden und damit möglichen politischen Interventionen einen Ansatzpunkt bieten. Beide Perspektiven unterscheiden sich jedoch darin, welche Lebensprozesse als relevant gelten, in welchen Zusammenhängen sich diese problematisieren lassen und welche Potenziale ihnen zugeschrieben werden. Für eine Mikrobiopolitik von Infektionskrankheiten steht dabei weniger das pathogene Potenzial von Mikroorganismen im Vordergrund, als vielmehr das biosoziale. ; ABSTRACT The article takes up, through the concept of microbiopolitics outlined by Heather Paxson, a line of biopolitics reception within the framework of Cultural Anthropology and European Ethnology, to investigate what policies and practices are based on medical regulated intervention in relationship within the interactions between men and microbes. The idea of microbiopolitcs is based on both natural-sciences diagnostics and ethnographic studies, putting the focus on the contribution of microorganism on disease processes and health, development, bodies and body practices. Based on the assumption that viruses and men are in close mutual relationships with one another, we take the example of the influenza virus, in order to discuss how viruses take part in the configuration of human bodies, as well as the production of scientific knowledge. In the comparison between microbiopolitics and biopolitics is shown that both perspectives are based on the premise that the body processes and life becomes the subject of orders of Power and Knowledge, and because of that, they are political interventions, which provide a starting point. However, they differ both perspectives in which processes of life are considered relevant, in which relationships they can be problematized and which potentials can be attributed to them. For a microbiopolitics of infectious disease which takes the spotlight is not much potential pathogenic microorganism, but the biosocial.

El artículo retoma, a través del concepto de microbiopolítica esbozado por Heather Paxson, una línea de recepción biopolítica dentro del marco disciplinario de la antropología cultural y la etnología europea, para indagar qué prácticas y políticas se fundamentan en la intervención médica regulada en el seno de la relación de interacción entre hombres y microbios. La idea de microbiopolítica se funda tanto en diagnósticos científico-naturales como etnográficos que ponen el foco en la contribución de micoorganismos a procesos de enfermedad y salud, evolución, cuerpos y prácticas del cuerpo. Basándose en el supuesto de que virus y hombres se encuentran en estrechas relaciones recíprocas unos con otros, se toma el ejemplo del virus influenza1 para discutir de qué manera toman parte los virus en la configuración de los cuerpos humanos así como en la producción de conocimiento científico. En la comparación entre microbiopolítica y biopolítica se muestra que ambas perspectivas se basan en la premisa de que los procesos del cuerpo y de la vida se convierten en objeto de órdenes de poder y de conocimiento y de que, por eso, hay intervenciones políticas posibles que ofrecen un punto de partida. Sin embargo, ambas perspectivas se diferencian en qué procesos de la vida son considerados relevantes, en qué relaciones pueden ser problematizados y qué potenciales les son atribuidos. Para una microbiopolítica de las enfermedades infecciosas lo que ocupa el primer plano no es tanto el potencial patógeno de microorganismo, sino más bien el biosocial. ; ABSTRACT The article takes up, through the concept of microbiopolitics outlined by Heather Paxson, a line of biopolitics reception within the framework of Cultural Anthropology and European Ethnology, to investigate what policies and practices are based on medical regulated intervention in relationship within the interactions between men and microbes. The idea of microbiopolitcs is based on both natural-sciences diagnostics and ethnographic studies, putting the focus on the contribution of microorganism on disease processes and health, development, bodies and body practices. Based on the assumption that viruses and men are in close mutual relationships with one another, we take the example of the influenza virus, in order to discuss how viruses take part in the configuration of human bodies, as well as the production of scientific knowledge. In the comparison between microbiopolitics and biopolitics is shown that both perspectives are based on the premise that the body processes and life becomes the subject of orders of Power and Knowledge, and because of that, they are political interventions, which provide a starting point. However, they differ both perspectives in which processes of life are considered relevant, in which relationships they can be problematized and which potentials can be attributed to them. For a microbiopolitics of infectious disease which takes the spotlight is not much potential pathogenic microorganism, but the biosocial.

Public health authorities in Germany regard communication as a crucial part of infectious disease prevention and control strategies. Communication becomes even more important during public health crises such as pandemics. Drawing on Briggs and Hallin's concept of biocommunicability, we analysed the German National Pandemic Plan and key informant interviews with public health experts, critical infrastructure providers and ambulance services. We examined the projected expectations towards the behaviour of the audiences and the projected ways of information circulation informing public health communication strategies during a pandemic. Participants shared the expectation that the population would react towards an influenza pandemic with panic and fear due to a lack of information or a sensationalist media coverage. They associated the information uptake of their target audience with trust in their expertise. While our informants from public health conceptualised trust in terms of a face-to-face interaction, they sought to gain trust through transparency in their respective institutional settings. Our analysis suggests that this moved health information into a political register where their medical authority was open to debate. In response to this, they perceived the field of communication as a struggle for hegemony.