No abstract

No abstract

This paper draws from interviews with 21 young New Zealanders, ages 16-24, to examine how health apps shape young people's experiences of themselves as agentive subjects in relation to their physical and mental wellbeing. Focusing on the intended and unintended effects of health apps, I examine how digital care technologies recast the spatiality and temporality of healthcare, enabling new ways of constituting and tracking health, expanding possibilities of interactive exchanges with others, and redistributing a sense of agency and control. In many ways, the forms of self-governance that health apps engender are no different from other moves to promote increased self-responsibility that are cultivated as part of advanced liberalism. However, I argue that by collapsing the spatial and temporal relations of technology use, health apps not only heighten opportunities for adopting self-responsibility, but also, as many young people attest, promote the feeling that there is no escaping from them. The result is that for many young people having a sense of control and responsibility over their health comes to be calibrated against not only the inherent inter-sociality of care (i.e. young people's desires to both give and receive care to and from others), but also the health and fitness "demands" seemingly made upon them by technology itself.

Scholarly examinations of states of emergency frequently underscore how the crisis imaginary is employed to rapidly and unjustifiably expand state power. This line of analysis affords great insight into the misuse of state power. It also, however, tends to depict the citizenry as either weak and overwhelmed or at best, duped by the workings of the state, and thus ignores the possibility of democratic processes continuing within a state of emergency. Aotearoa/New Zealand’s response to Covid‐19 reveals a collaborative dynamic in which the citizenry actively engaged in constituting the state of emergency, and suggests the need for a broader examination of how collective responsibility, care and blame are envisioned and enacted, not only by governments but by (neo‐liberal) citizenries during times of national crisis.

Over forty-nine days of Level 4 and Level 3 lockdown, residents of Aotearoa New Zealand were subject to 'stay home' regulations that restricted physical contact to members of the same social 'bubble'. This article examines their moral decision-making and affective experiences of lockdown, especially when faced with competing responsibilities to adhere to public health regulations, but also to care for themselves or provide support to people outside their bubbles. Our respondents engaged in independent risk assessment, weighing up how best to uphold the 'spirit' of the lockdown even when contravening lockdown regulations; their decisions could, however, lead to acute social rifts. Some respondentssuch as those in flatshares and shared childcare arrangementsrecounted feeling disempowered from participating in the collective management of risk and responsibility within their bubbles, while essential workers found that anxieties about their workplace exposure to the coronavirus could prevent them from expanding their bubbles in ways they might have liked. The inability to adequately care for oneself or for others thus emerges as a crucial axis of disadvantage, specific to times of lockdown. Policy recommendations regarding lockdown regulations are provided.

In this article, I examine the self-positioning of many New Zealand mothers of children with asthma as parent-experts whose authority supersedes that of implementing the self-management strategies advocated by medical professionals. In a socio-political context that emphasizes neoliberal values of autonomy and self-responsibility, these parent-experts experiment with a variety of pharmaceutical regimes, determining familial modes of care that privilege the achievement of what they consider to be 'normal childhoods.' While some families accept asthma as a chronic condition and encourage children to adopt standardized, daily preventative regimes, others craft alternative strategies of pharmaceutical use that allow them to experientially maintain asthma as a sporadic and temporary, if frequent and sometimes dramatic, interruption of everyday life. Childhood asthma care practices are thus not only vested in kinship networks, but often arise out of familial-based experiments whose goal is to determine regimes that enable the preservation of 'normality.'

Citizens do not merely respond to states of emergency; in democratic societies, they help constitute them. This essay analyzes New Zealanders’ engagements in ethical reasoning during the country’s first COVID-19 lockdown. Specifically, I examine how we can understand a variety of public responses to emergency measures—including breaching regulations, threatening rule-breakers, sealing off neighborhoods, and recasting citizen-returnees as “strangers”—as negotiations of ethical proximities focused on keeping appropriately close that which is thought should be near, and keeping distanced that deemed best held afar.

customary collective and shared forms. In many parts of Europe, religious rites in general and funerary rites in particular are, in normal times, the examples par excellence of how sociality is periodically re-established through the ritualisation of family, friendship and labour network ties. These practices are inevitably being rethought and reconfigured, their importance though indirectly confirmed, in these days, along with more mundane and cheerful ones, through a variety of cultural means, such as digital ones. Thus we reweave damaged, disrupted or interrupted sociality in the current interregnum of the private and domestic sphere over the public one.