Social movements organised around health-related issues have been studied for almost as long as they have existed, yet social movement theory has not yet been applied to these movements. Health social movements (HSMs) are centrally organised around health, and address: (a) access to or provision of health care services; (b) health inequality and inequity based on race, ethnicity, gender, class and/or sexuality; and/or (c) disease, illness experience, disability and contested illness. HSMs can be subdivided into three categories: health access movements seek equitable access to health care and improved provision of health care services; constituencybased health movements address health inequality and health inequity based on race, ethnicity, gender, class and/or sexuality differences; and embodied health movements (EHMs) address disease, disability or illness experience by challenging science on etiology, diagnosis, treatment and prevention. These groups address disproportionate outcomes and oversight by the scientific community and/or weak science. This article focuses on embodied health movements, primarily in the US. These are unique in three ways: 1) they introduce the biological body to social movements, especially with regard to the embodied experience of people with the disease; 2) they typically include challenges to existing medical / scientific knowledge and practice; and 3) they often involve activists collaborating with scientists and health professionals in pursuing treatment, prevention, research and expanded funding. This article employs various elements of social movement theory to offer an approach to understanding embodied health movements, and provides a capsule example of one such movement, the environmental breast cancer movement.

A number of governmental agencies have called for enhancing citizen’s resilience as a means of preparing populations in advance of disasters, and as a counter-balance to social and individual vulnerabilities. This increasing scholarly, policy and programmatic interest in promoting individual and communal resilience presents a challenge to the research and practice communities: to develop a translational framework that can accommodate multi-disciplinary scientific perspectives into a single, applied model. The Resilience Activation Framework provides a basis for testing how access to social resources, such as formal and informal social support and help, promotes positive adaptation or reduced psychopathology among individuals and communities exposed to the acute collective stressors associated with disasters, whether manmade, natural, or technological in origin. Articulating the mechanisms by which access to social resources activate and sustain resilience capacities for optimal mental health outcomes post-disaster can lead to the development of effective preventive and early intervention programs.

This article contributes to the disaster literature by measuring and connecting two concepts that are highly related but whose relationship is rarely empirically evaluated: social vulnerability and community resilience. To do so, we measure community resilience and social vulnerability in counties across the United States and find a correlation between high levels of vulnerability and low levels of resilience, indicating that the most vulnerable counties also tend to be the least resilient. We also find regional differences in the distribution of community resilience and social vulnerability, with the West being particularly vulnerable while the Southeast is prone to low levels of resilience. By looking at both social vulnerability and community resilience, we are able to map communities’ social risks for harm from threats as well as their capacities for recovering and adapting in the aftermath of hazards. This provides a more complete portrait of the communities that might need the most assistance in emergency planning and response, as well as whether such interventions will need to be tailored toward reducing damage or finding the path to recovery.

No abstract