构建未来承诺,推迟道德审查:医疗紧缩的困境

IF 4.5 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Human Relations Pub Date : 2024-08-03 DOI:10.1177/00187267241265921
Sam Van Elk, Juliane Reinecke, Susan Trenholm, Ewan Ferlie
{"title":"构建未来承诺,推迟道德审查:医疗紧缩的困境","authors":"Sam Van Elk, Juliane Reinecke, Susan Trenholm, Ewan Ferlie","doi":"10.1177/00187267241265921","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How can actors use the future to politically navigate moral disputes today? This article examines how projected futures are constructed and mobilised to suspend present-day moral dilemmas. Utilising the Economies of Worth and Barbara Adam’s sociology of time, we discursively analyse the moral dilemma between civic virtues and financial savings in UK healthcare austerity (2010–2018). This reveals how the pro-austerity government avoided moral scrutiny of their posited solutions to apparently intractable moral struggles using future projections we term ‘promissory futures’. Promissory futures project desirable futures that ambiguously seem both secured enough to be reliable, and open enough to escape today’s moral dilemmas. Thus, government could use them to shift the temporal focus away from present-day moral critique of how they were balancing austerity’s financial savings against civic virtues, and into a future where savings and civic virtues were compatible. However, promissory futures contain a contradiction: the future cannot be both already-secured and still-open. Thus, critics could eventually deconstruct promissory futures, requiring government to repeatedly reconstruct them. There thus emerges less a definitive moral settle- ment and more a continual process of moral settl- ing, whereby a series of promissory futures together forestall critique of underlying settlements, thus delaying moral struggles’ denouements.","PeriodicalId":48433,"journal":{"name":"Human Relations","volume":"133 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Constructing promissory futures to defer moral scrutiny: The dilemma of healthcare austerity\",\"authors\":\"Sam Van Elk, Juliane Reinecke, Susan Trenholm, Ewan Ferlie\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00187267241265921\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"How can actors use the future to politically navigate moral disputes today? This article examines how projected futures are constructed and mobilised to suspend present-day moral dilemmas. Utilising the Economies of Worth and Barbara Adam’s sociology of time, we discursively analyse the moral dilemma between civic virtues and financial savings in UK healthcare austerity (2010–2018). This reveals how the pro-austerity government avoided moral scrutiny of their posited solutions to apparently intractable moral struggles using future projections we term ‘promissory futures’. Promissory futures project desirable futures that ambiguously seem both secured enough to be reliable, and open enough to escape today’s moral dilemmas. Thus, government could use them to shift the temporal focus away from present-day moral critique of how they were balancing austerity’s financial savings against civic virtues, and into a future where savings and civic virtues were compatible. However, promissory futures contain a contradiction: the future cannot be both already-secured and still-open. Thus, critics could eventually deconstruct promissory futures, requiring government to repeatedly reconstruct them. There thus emerges less a definitive moral settle- ment and more a continual process of moral settl- ing, whereby a series of promissory futures together forestall critique of underlying settlements, thus delaying moral struggles’ denouements.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48433,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Relations\",\"volume\":\"133 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Relations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267241265921\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Relations","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267241265921","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

行为者如何利用未来在政治上引导当今的道德争议?本文探讨了如何构建和调动预测的未来来暂缓当今的道德困境。利用 "价值经济学"(Economies of Worth)和芭芭拉-亚当(Barbara Adam)的 "时间社会学"(sociology of time),我们对英国医疗紧缩政策(2010-2018 年)中公民美德与财政节约之间的道德困境进行了话语分析。这揭示了支持紧缩政策的政府如何利用我们称之为 "许诺的未来 "的未来预测来避免对其提出的显然难以解决的道德困境的解决方案进行道德审查。许诺未来 "预测的理想未来模棱两可,似乎既足够安全可靠,又足够开放,可以摆脱当今的道德困境。因此,政府可以利用它们来转移时间焦点,使人们不再对政府如何平衡财政紧缩与公民美德之间的关系进行道德批判,而是关注节约与公民美德相容的未来。然而,未来承诺包含着一个矛盾:未来不可能既已得到保障,又仍然是开放的。因此,批评者最终会解构未来承诺,要求政府反复重建未来承诺。因此,与其说出现了最终的道德解决,不如说出现了一个持续的道德解决过程,在这个过程中,一系列的承诺未来共同阻止了对基本解决的批评,从而推迟了道德斗争的终结。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Constructing promissory futures to defer moral scrutiny: The dilemma of healthcare austerity
How can actors use the future to politically navigate moral disputes today? This article examines how projected futures are constructed and mobilised to suspend present-day moral dilemmas. Utilising the Economies of Worth and Barbara Adam’s sociology of time, we discursively analyse the moral dilemma between civic virtues and financial savings in UK healthcare austerity (2010–2018). This reveals how the pro-austerity government avoided moral scrutiny of their posited solutions to apparently intractable moral struggles using future projections we term ‘promissory futures’. Promissory futures project desirable futures that ambiguously seem both secured enough to be reliable, and open enough to escape today’s moral dilemmas. Thus, government could use them to shift the temporal focus away from present-day moral critique of how they were balancing austerity’s financial savings against civic virtues, and into a future where savings and civic virtues were compatible. However, promissory futures contain a contradiction: the future cannot be both already-secured and still-open. Thus, critics could eventually deconstruct promissory futures, requiring government to repeatedly reconstruct them. There thus emerges less a definitive moral settle- ment and more a continual process of moral settl- ing, whereby a series of promissory futures together forestall critique of underlying settlements, thus delaying moral struggles’ denouements.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Human Relations
Human Relations Multiple-
CiteScore
12.60
自引率
7.00%
发文量
82
期刊介绍: Human Relations is an international peer reviewed journal, which publishes the highest quality original research to advance our understanding of social relationships at and around work through theoretical development and empirical investigation. Scope Human Relations seeks high quality research papers that extend our knowledge of social relationships at work and organizational forms, practices and processes that affect the nature, structure and conditions of work and work organizations. Human Relations welcomes manuscripts that seek to cross disciplinary boundaries in order to develop new perspectives and insights into social relationships and relationships between people and organizations. Human Relations encourages strong empirical contributions that develop and extend theory as well as more conceptual papers that integrate, critique and expand existing theory. Human Relations welcomes critical reviews and essays: - Critical reviews advance a field through new theory, new methods, a novel synthesis of extant evidence, or a combination of two or three of these elements. Reviews that identify new research questions and that make links between management and organizations and the wider social sciences are particularly welcome. Surveys or overviews of a field are unlikely to meet these criteria. - Critical essays address contemporary scholarly issues and debates within the journal''s scope. They are more controversial than conventional papers or reviews, and can be shorter. They argue a point of view, but must meet standards of academic rigour. Anyone with an idea for a critical essay is particularly encouraged to discuss it at an early stage with the Editor-in-Chief. Human Relations encourages research that relates social theory to social practice and translates knowledge about human relations into prospects for social action and policy-making that aims to improve working lives.
期刊最新文献
Relations between reflexivity and institutional work: A case study in a public organisation Inspired to be transformational: The interplay between employee voice type and manager construal level Cultivating dispersed collectivity: How communities between organizations sustain employee activism The different ways of being true to self at work: A review of divergence among authenticity constructs Embodying wilfulness: Investigating the unequal power dynamics of informal organisational body work through the case of women in stand-up comedy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1