This week, we're continuing our discussion of "structural violence," inequality, and disease/health. We'll be concentrating on the first two chapters of Paul Farmer's book, Pathologies of Power.
The introductory chapter of the book draws heavily on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which can be found here: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
For your commentaries this week, simply choose one of the following topics and write a brief commentary only on that topic:
Describe what structural violence means for Paul Farmer and why he has written his book on it. With that, what unites the two stories that Farmer relates--those of Acephie and Chouchou--and why does Farmer suggest that the level of suffering expressed in these stories is difficult to know and to relate (see passages beginning on 39-40)?
Farmer very clearly articulates the goals of his book. What are they and to whom are they directed? Why is he particularly well suited to address those parties and what kind of evidence does he draw on to do so?
Why does Farmer suggest that the "reigning ideologies of public health" runs counter to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? What are the reigning ideologies of public health (and what other ideological framings do they fit with)?
What does it mean, for Farmer, to "bear witness"? What are the different ways of bearing witness that he defines? Why is the distinction important?
Friday, November 26, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Cholera in the Time of War--"A Microscopic Insurgent"
This week, we're switching gears again to our final unit on health, medicine, and disease. We will revisit a number of themes that we've discussed throughout the course, namely geographies of exclusion and the production and reproduction of poverty. We'll also continue to look at different ways of understanding, explaining, and representing the world and the interests expressed therein. In short, we'll be looking at the politics of microbes and how their spread and management are not only "natural" but also the result of social and political histories.
The first reading that we're doing on this topic is Jenna Loyd's "A Microscopic Insurgent: Militarization, Health, and Critical Geographies of Violence," which is to be found in your course packets. Loyd is going to take us to Iraq to look at the connection between health (particularly representations of health and disease) and the US military intervention there. Heads up: this is an academic journal article is vastly different in approach and tone to the chapters we've just been reading in Neuwirth. While it is fairly brief, don't be fooled--it's also very dense. You should take your time with this reading and work to really understand it. At the same time, try not to get frustrated at its difficulty. Try to focus on how Loyd makes the claim that "health is entwined with violence."
To provide some background, Loyd (like many of the authors that we've read) is taking issue primarily with the misrepresentation of place and history in the New York Times. In particular she takes aim at the way in which Mark Drapeau presents the history and emergence of a cholera epidemic in Iraq (the article that she is critiquing can be found here). In doing this, Loyd explores the link between humanitarian causes and military violence, arguing that the former are often used to legitimate the latter. We can see Loyd's article as part of an ongoing conversation about "structural violence." This is not a term that we've used in class, although much of what we've discussed to date--the effects of "free trade" and agricultural policy on farmers as well as displacement in urban area--can be considered "structural violence." This term simply refers to the (often unintended and under-examined) effects of economic and governmental policy that do physical and mental harm to certain groups or individuals within a population. Structural violence often produces or intensifies existing social inequalities, placing certain populations at greater risk of disease, premature death, malnutrition, and general insecurity. Loyd makes the argument that the violence of war should not only be measured in its direct costs to life, but also in the forms of structural violence that it creates.
As you read, pay attention to how Loyd frames her argument against Drapeau. Her argument is very similar to that of Professor Lindskoog's in his open letter to David Brooks about Haiti. Where do you see similarities? What evidence does she use to make her claim? What do you think she is suggesting about the US's role in Iraq in relation to histories of Imperialism? And what do you think the implications are for how we think about humanitarian aid?
The first reading that we're doing on this topic is Jenna Loyd's "A Microscopic Insurgent: Militarization, Health, and Critical Geographies of Violence," which is to be found in your course packets. Loyd is going to take us to Iraq to look at the connection between health (particularly representations of health and disease) and the US military intervention there. Heads up: this is an academic journal article is vastly different in approach and tone to the chapters we've just been reading in Neuwirth. While it is fairly brief, don't be fooled--it's also very dense. You should take your time with this reading and work to really understand it. At the same time, try not to get frustrated at its difficulty. Try to focus on how Loyd makes the claim that "health is entwined with violence."
To provide some background, Loyd (like many of the authors that we've read) is taking issue primarily with the misrepresentation of place and history in the New York Times. In particular she takes aim at the way in which Mark Drapeau presents the history and emergence of a cholera epidemic in Iraq (the article that she is critiquing can be found here). In doing this, Loyd explores the link between humanitarian causes and military violence, arguing that the former are often used to legitimate the latter. We can see Loyd's article as part of an ongoing conversation about "structural violence." This is not a term that we've used in class, although much of what we've discussed to date--the effects of "free trade" and agricultural policy on farmers as well as displacement in urban area--can be considered "structural violence." This term simply refers to the (often unintended and under-examined) effects of economic and governmental policy that do physical and mental harm to certain groups or individuals within a population. Structural violence often produces or intensifies existing social inequalities, placing certain populations at greater risk of disease, premature death, malnutrition, and general insecurity. Loyd makes the argument that the violence of war should not only be measured in its direct costs to life, but also in the forms of structural violence that it creates.
As you read, pay attention to how Loyd frames her argument against Drapeau. Her argument is very similar to that of Professor Lindskoog's in his open letter to David Brooks about Haiti. Where do you see similarities? What evidence does she use to make her claim? What do you think she is suggesting about the US's role in Iraq in relation to histories of Imperialism? And what do you think the implications are for how we think about humanitarian aid?
Cholera in the Time of War--"A Microscopic Insurgent"
This week, we're switching gears again to our final unit on health, medicine, and disease. We will revisit a number of themes that we've discussed throughout the course, namely geographies of exclusion and the production and reproduction of poverty. We'll also continue to look at different ways of understanding, explaining, and representing the world and the interests expressed therein. In short, we'll be looking at the politics of microbes and how their spread and management are not only "natural" but also the result of social and political histories.
The first reading that we're doing on this topic is Jenna Loyd's "A Microscopic Insurgent: Militarization, Health, and Critical Geographies of Violence," which is to be found in your course packets. Loyd is going to take us to Iraq to look at the connection between health (particularly representations of health and disease) and the US military intervention there. Heads up: this is an academic journal article is vastly different in approach and tone to the chapters we've just been reading in Neuwirth. While it is fairly brief, don't be fooled--it's also very dense. You should take your time with this reading and work to really understand it. At the same time, try not to get frustrated at its difficulty. Try to focus on how Loyd makes the claim that "health is entwined with violence."
To provide some background, Loyd (like many of the authors that we've read) is taking issue primarily with the misrepresentation of place and history in the New York Times. In particular she takes aim at the way in which Mark Drapeau presents the history and emergence of a cholera epidemic in Iraq (the article that she is critiquing can be found here). In doing this, Loyd explores the link between humanitarian causes and military violence, arguing that the former are often used to legitimate the latter. We can see Loyd's article as part of an ongoing conversation about "structural violence." This is not a term that we've used in class, although much of what we've discussed to date--the effects of "free trade" and agricultural policy on farmers as well as displacement in urban area--can be considered "structural violence." This term simply refers to the (often unintended and under-examined) effects of economic and governmental policy that do physical and mental harm to certain groups or individuals within a population. Structural violence often produces or intensifies existing social inequalities, placing certain populations at greater risk of disease, premature death, malnutrition, and general insecurity. Loyd makes the argument that the violence of war should not only be measured in its direct costs to life, but also in the forms of structural violence that it creates.
As you read, pay attention to how Loyd frames her argument against Drapeau. Her argument is very similar to that of Professor Lindskoog's in his open letter to David Brooks about Haiti. Where do you see similarities? What evidence does she use to make her claim? What do you think she is suggesting about the US's role in Iraq in relation to histories of Imperialism? And what do you think the implications are for how we think about humanitarian aid?
The first reading that we're doing on this topic is Jenna Loyd's "A Microscopic Insurgent: Militarization, Health, and Critical Geographies of Violence," which is to be found in your course packets. Loyd is going to take us to Iraq to look at the connection between health (particularly representations of health and disease) and the US military intervention there. Heads up: this is an academic journal article is vastly different in approach and tone to the chapters we've just been reading in Neuwirth. While it is fairly brief, don't be fooled--it's also very dense. You should take your time with this reading and work to really understand it. At the same time, try not to get frustrated at its difficulty. Try to focus on how Loyd makes the claim that "health is entwined with violence."
To provide some background, Loyd (like many of the authors that we've read) is taking issue primarily with the misrepresentation of place and history in the New York Times. In particular she takes aim at the way in which Mark Drapeau presents the history and emergence of a cholera epidemic in Iraq (the article that she is critiquing can be found here). In doing this, Loyd explores the link between humanitarian causes and military violence, arguing that the former are often used to legitimate the latter. We can see Loyd's article as part of an ongoing conversation about "structural violence." This is not a term that we've used in class, although much of what we've discussed to date--the effects of "free trade" and agricultural policy on farmers as well as displacement in urban area--can be considered "structural violence." This term simply refers to the (often unintended and under-examined) effects of economic and governmental policy that do physical and mental harm to certain groups or individuals within a population. Structural violence often produces or intensifies existing social inequalities, placing certain populations at greater risk of disease, premature death, malnutrition, and general insecurity. Loyd makes the argument that the violence of war should not only be measured in its direct costs to life, but also in the forms of structural violence that it creates.
As you read, pay attention to how Loyd frames her argument against Drapeau. Her argument is very similar to that of Professor Lindskoog's in his open letter to David Brooks about Haiti. Where do you see similarities? What evidence does she use to make her claim? What do you think she is suggesting about the US's role in Iraq in relation to histories of Imperialism? And what do you think the implications are for how we think about humanitarian aid?
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Squatting in NYC
This week, we're going to continue our discussion of squatting, the making of private property, and ways of understanding poverty and uneven development, this time focusing our attention on our own city. In the chapter we'll be reading from Shadow Cities, Neuwirth takes us through the history of squatting in New York. As you read, pay attention to how squatter settlements in New York were eradicated. What justifications did the city use for evicting squatters from the land? Were those justifications valid or not? If not, what were the real reasons that the city wanted to take land from the squatters and how was the land used and transformed after the squatters were evicted?
In addition to Neuwirth's chapter we're also going to be looking at some more recent examples of tensions over housing and property in the city and we'll be returning to a topic we discussed two weeks ago: "gentrification." In particular, we're going to discuss what happened on the Lower East Side of Manhattan in the 1980s and 1990s. It's not required, but if you have time, take a look at Neil Smith's description of the conflict between squatters and the NYPD around Tompkins Square Park in the late '80s and early '90s. The essay is titled, "'Class Struggle on Avenue B': The Lower East Side as Wild Wild West." [[CLICK ON THE TITLE TO ACCESS THE ARTICLE]] So, as you can guess, we'll also be retuning to ideas about the role class struggle in the making of uneven development that we left off discussing this week. In your commentaries, you are encouraged to grapple with and question some of the theories of poverty (and critiques of them) that we covered in class.
In addition to Neuwirth's chapter we're also going to be looking at some more recent examples of tensions over housing and property in the city and we'll be returning to a topic we discussed two weeks ago: "gentrification." In particular, we're going to discuss what happened on the Lower East Side of Manhattan in the 1980s and 1990s. It's not required, but if you have time, take a look at Neil Smith's description of the conflict between squatters and the NYPD around Tompkins Square Park in the late '80s and early '90s. The essay is titled, "'Class Struggle on Avenue B': The Lower East Side as Wild Wild West." [[CLICK ON THE TITLE TO ACCESS THE ARTICLE]] So, as you can guess, we'll also be retuning to ideas about the role class struggle in the making of uneven development that we left off discussing this week. In your commentaries, you are encouraged to grapple with and question some of the theories of poverty (and critiques of them) that we covered in class.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Poverty and Housing in Nairobi and Mumbai
In our readings this week, Robert Neuwirth takes us to two very different cities in Kenya and India. As you read these accounts of life in these two squatter cities, pay attention to the way that Neuwirth develops his descriptions of place. What does his ethnographic approach to understanding cities reveal? What kind of image of place does he develop in both of these accounts? Each place that he visits in the book tells a particular story of the conditions of housing and poverty in urban areas. In these two chapters what are these squatter cities like and how are they different in each place? Our goal for this week will be to look outside of these areas themselves to explore more why squatter cities exist in the first place and what conditions exist that produce change within and around them (or that prohibit change to take place). In class, we'll be discussing and debating the elements that "make" poverty as well as different explanatory frameworks used to understand those elements. So, as you read and in your commentaries consider the economic forces, political movements, and individual people that play a role in Neuwirth's depiction of these two places. What and who contribute to life in these squatter cities? As you think about this, consider what might be missing from Neuwirth's accounts? What are the potential limitations of his ethnographic approach (i.e. what is he unable to explain)?
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Digital copies of next week's readings
For those of you who requested them, the chapters that we will be reading for next week can be found below. We're reading the chapters on Nairobi and Mumbai for next week. We'll be reading the chapter on "Squatters in New York" the following week. Click on the titles to download the readings.
"Nairobi"
"Mumbai"
"Squatters in New York"
"Nairobi"
"Mumbai"
"Squatters in New York"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)