Population Health and Social Governance: A Review, an Update, Some Clarifications, and a Response

Abstract

Critical theory is a paradigm that promotes viewpoints that are alternative and, at times, contrary to mainstream beliefs and dictates. In 2012, I adopted this perspective to review the role of ethnography and surmised that the data which arise from this research approach, which I described as an in-depth study of cultures, can be used to discipline and control these groups. In this edition of Qualitative Health Research, another author has critiqued this position. In this article, I review this critique, reiterate my position, update the data I used for my 2012 article, and highlight how I navigate what I feel is a tension between critical theory and practice.

Introducing the SMILE_PH method: Sense-making interviews looking at elements of philosophical health

“…Physical health and psychological health have been systematized into a social imperative (Bell et al, 2010). On the one hand, tangible positive results have been produced, for example in terms of life expectancy or the cure of pathologies previously thought to be incurable; on the other hand, health is now an industry and in some cases a form of social governance (O’Byrne, 2019). Institutions sometimes promote a medicated way toward health based on an overly mechanical or statistic conception of the mind and body (Fee, 1999; Tyreman, 2020).…”