On the genealogy of the global health justice movement

Parker, Richard

doi:10.1080/17441692.2023.2288686

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 93 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If, as anthropologists warn us, the "global" is inherently a problematic frame stemming from Western epistemology that is limiting of what can be imagined and enacted (Cohen2012, Yates-Doerr 2019), is "global health" really a coherent idea worthy of pursuit and use by different social movements (or, label of their work as a project of "global health" as I have done here)? Further, if Global Health is not global health, how are we to make sense of liminal people and social organizations committed to health justice but who use a plethora of methods and frameworks that sometimes align with hegemonic Global Health, but sometimes align with antiglobalization movements (Musolino et al2020,Parker 2023)? As Pandhi points towards, it is precisely in "the social and cultural contours and contradictions that exist in between" hegemonic and antihegemonic structures, practices, and people that we may begin to find "otherwise" visions for organizing communal health (2024, p. 23).…”

Section: Towards the Future Of 'Global Health'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Divorcing ‘Global Health’ from ‘global health’: Theories for the future of a social organization and an idea

Krugman

2024

JCPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As conversations and thinking concerning changing the field that calls itself “global health” have proliferated over the past three years, a key predicament has emerged. While almost all in the field agree that something must change, for the vast majority a world without this complex, massive project and apparatus is still unimaginable and undesirable. Arguing that the vagueness yet moral encasing of the field created a situation in which efforts of change must end at preserving the field, I argue that ‘Global Health’ is not ‘global health,’ and understanding this leads to greater possibilities of what the field could be and how to change it. Engaging with a wide range of critical scholarship, I divorce Global Health—a loosely configured global apparatus—from global health—a utopian idea—I show how both this social system and this idea are constructed and exist in plurality. Through then denaturalizing widely accepted and embedded myths of the field’s necessity and moral transcendence to the world, I map the possibilities of what efforts of changing Global Health could be when these myths are rejected and reorient focus on how critical public health scholarship can be used to aid these efforts.

show abstract

Section: Towards the Future Of 'Global Health'mentioning

confidence: 99%