大流行警务与公众建设:对COVID-19公共住房封锁的分析。

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Health Sociology Review Pub Date : 2023-11-01 Epub Date: 2023-02-05 DOI:10.1080/14461242.2023.2170260
Paul Kelaita, Kiran Pienaar, Jaya Keaney, Dean Murphy, Hassan Vally, Catherine M Bennett
{"title":"大流行警务与公众建设:对COVID-19公共住房封锁的分析。","authors":"Paul Kelaita,&nbsp;Kiran Pienaar,&nbsp;Jaya Keaney,&nbsp;Dean Murphy,&nbsp;Hassan Vally,&nbsp;Catherine M Bennett","doi":"10.1080/14461242.2023.2170260","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>COVID-19 responses have cast a spotlight on the uneven impacts of public health policy with particular populations or sites targeted for intervention. Perhaps the starkest example in Australia was the 'hard' lockdown of nine public housing complexes in inner-city Melbourne from 4 to 18 July 2020, where residents were fully confined to their homes. These complexes are home to diverse migrant communities and the lockdown drew public criticism for unfairly stigmatising ethnic minorities. This article draws on media articles published during the lockdown and the Victorian Ombudsman's subsequent investigation to explore the implications of broad, top-down public health measures for culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities. Drawing on Lea's (2020) conceptualisation of policy ecology, we analyse the lockdown measures and community responses to explore the normative assumptions underpinning health policy mechanisms, constituting 'target populations' in narrow, exclusionary terms. We argue that the lockdown measures and use of police as compliance officers positioned tower residents as risky subjects in risky places. Tracing how such subject positions are produced, and resisted at the grassroots level, we highlight how policy instruments are not neutral interventions, but rather instantiate classed and racialised patterns of exclusion, reinforcing pervasive social inequalities in the name of public health.</p>","PeriodicalId":46833,"journal":{"name":"Health Sociology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pandemic policing and the construction of publics: an analysis of COVID-19 lockdowns in public housing.\",\"authors\":\"Paul Kelaita,&nbsp;Kiran Pienaar,&nbsp;Jaya Keaney,&nbsp;Dean Murphy,&nbsp;Hassan Vally,&nbsp;Catherine M Bennett\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14461242.2023.2170260\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>COVID-19 responses have cast a spotlight on the uneven impacts of public health policy with particular populations or sites targeted for intervention. Perhaps the starkest example in Australia was the 'hard' lockdown of nine public housing complexes in inner-city Melbourne from 4 to 18 July 2020, where residents were fully confined to their homes. These complexes are home to diverse migrant communities and the lockdown drew public criticism for unfairly stigmatising ethnic minorities. This article draws on media articles published during the lockdown and the Victorian Ombudsman's subsequent investigation to explore the implications of broad, top-down public health measures for culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities. Drawing on Lea's (2020) conceptualisation of policy ecology, we analyse the lockdown measures and community responses to explore the normative assumptions underpinning health policy mechanisms, constituting 'target populations' in narrow, exclusionary terms. We argue that the lockdown measures and use of police as compliance officers positioned tower residents as risky subjects in risky places. Tracing how such subject positions are produced, and resisted at the grassroots level, we highlight how policy instruments are not neutral interventions, but rather instantiate classed and racialised patterns of exclusion, reinforcing pervasive social inequalities in the name of public health.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46833,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Sociology Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Sociology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14461242.2023.2170260\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/2/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Sociology Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14461242.2023.2170260","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

新冠肺炎应对措施突显了公共卫生政策对特定人群或干预地点的不均衡影响。也许澳大利亚最明显的例子是2020年7月4日至18日墨尔本市中心的九个公共住房综合体被“严格”封锁,那里的居民被完全限制在家中。这些综合体是不同移民社区的家园,封锁因不公平地污名化少数民族而招致公众批评。本文借鉴了封锁期间发表的媒体文章和维多利亚州监察员随后的调查,探讨了自上而下的广泛公共卫生措施对文化和语言多样性(CALD)社区的影响。根据Lea(2020)对政策生态的概念,我们分析了封锁措施和社区应对措施,以探索支撑卫生政策机制的规范性假设,这些假设构成了狭义的排斥性“目标人群”。我们认为,封锁措施和警察作为合规官员的使用将塔楼居民定位为风险场所的风险主体。追踪这些主题立场是如何在基层产生和抵制的,我们强调政策工具不是中立的干预措施,而是实例化分类和种族化的排斥模式,以公共卫生的名义加剧普遍存在的社会不平等。
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
Pandemic policing and the construction of publics: an analysis of COVID-19 lockdowns in public housing.

COVID-19 responses have cast a spotlight on the uneven impacts of public health policy with particular populations or sites targeted for intervention. Perhaps the starkest example in Australia was the 'hard' lockdown of nine public housing complexes in inner-city Melbourne from 4 to 18 July 2020, where residents were fully confined to their homes. These complexes are home to diverse migrant communities and the lockdown drew public criticism for unfairly stigmatising ethnic minorities. This article draws on media articles published during the lockdown and the Victorian Ombudsman's subsequent investigation to explore the implications of broad, top-down public health measures for culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities. Drawing on Lea's (2020) conceptualisation of policy ecology, we analyse the lockdown measures and community responses to explore the normative assumptions underpinning health policy mechanisms, constituting 'target populations' in narrow, exclusionary terms. We argue that the lockdown measures and use of police as compliance officers positioned tower residents as risky subjects in risky places. Tracing how such subject positions are produced, and resisted at the grassroots level, we highlight how policy instruments are not neutral interventions, but rather instantiate classed and racialised patterns of exclusion, reinforcing pervasive social inequalities in the name of public health.

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
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: An international, scholarly peer-reviewed journal, Health Sociology Review explores the contribution of sociology and sociological research methods to understanding health and illness; to health policy, promotion and practice; and to equity, social justice, social policy and social work. Health Sociology Review is published in association with The Australian Sociological Association (TASA) under the editorship of Eileen Willis. Health Sociology Review publishes original theoretical and research articles, literature reviews, special issues, symposia, commentaries and book reviews.
期刊最新文献
Drug consumption stigma and patient legitimacy: experiences of people who use drugs seeking care for chronic non-cancer pain in Nigeria. Gut feelings and lived experiences: a qualitative study of 'anti-diet' dietitians' and psychologists' motivations and experiences regarding the weight-neutral approach. Shifting solutions: tracking transformations of drugs, health and the 'human' through human rights processes in Australia. Masculine enhancement as health or pathology: gender and optimisation discourses in health promotion materials on performance and image-enhancing drugs (PIEDs). The good pain patient: a critical evaluation of patients' self-presentations in specialist pain clinics.
×
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