A socioecological discourse of care or an economistic discourse: which fits better with transition?

Abstract Objective: To analyse a ‘socioecological’ health promotion discourse and its relationship to orthodox ‘economistic’ discourse in Australia. Method: In research on health promotion addressing equity and environmental sustainability, we identified a socioecological discourse, based on an ethi...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Valerie Kay, Charles Livingstone
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2021-02-01
Series:Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.13070
_version_ 1797712906985406464
author Valerie Kay
Charles Livingstone
author_facet Valerie Kay
Charles Livingstone
author_sort Valerie Kay
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Objective: To analyse a ‘socioecological’ health promotion discourse and its relationship to orthodox ‘economistic’ discourse in Australia. Method: In research on health promotion addressing equity and environmental sustainability, we identified a socioecological discourse, based on an ethic of care for people and ecosystems. Using Foucault's concept of discourse as a regime that produces and legitimises certain kinds of knowledge, and ecofeminist historical analysis, we analysed this discourse and its relationship to economism. Results: The socioecological discourse takes social and ecological wellbeing as primary values, while economism takes production and trade of goods and services, measured by money, as primary. Following British invasion, property‐owning white men in Australia had the right to control and profit from land, trade, and the work of women and subordinate peoples. A knowledge regime using money as a primary measure reflects this history. In contrast, a First Nations’ primary value expressed in the study was ‘look after the land and the children’. Conclusion and implications for public health: Public health often attempts to express value through economism, using monetary measures. However, socioecological discourse, expressed for example through direct measures of social and ecological wellbeing, appears more fit for purpose in promoting a fair and sustainable society.
first_indexed 2024-03-12T07:28:41Z
format Article
id doaj.art-d9772b809a304c188312ec36235ab815
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1326-0200
1753-6405
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-12T07:28:41Z
publishDate 2021-02-01
publisher Elsevier
record_format Article
series Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
spelling doaj.art-d9772b809a304c188312ec36235ab8152023-09-02T21:58:58ZengElsevierAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health1326-02001753-64052021-02-01451717910.1111/1753-6405.13070A socioecological discourse of care or an economistic discourse: which fits better with transition?Valerie Kay0Charles Livingstone1School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine Monash University VictoriaSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine Monash University VictoriaAbstract Objective: To analyse a ‘socioecological’ health promotion discourse and its relationship to orthodox ‘economistic’ discourse in Australia. Method: In research on health promotion addressing equity and environmental sustainability, we identified a socioecological discourse, based on an ethic of care for people and ecosystems. Using Foucault's concept of discourse as a regime that produces and legitimises certain kinds of knowledge, and ecofeminist historical analysis, we analysed this discourse and its relationship to economism. Results: The socioecological discourse takes social and ecological wellbeing as primary values, while economism takes production and trade of goods and services, measured by money, as primary. Following British invasion, property‐owning white men in Australia had the right to control and profit from land, trade, and the work of women and subordinate peoples. A knowledge regime using money as a primary measure reflects this history. In contrast, a First Nations’ primary value expressed in the study was ‘look after the land and the children’. Conclusion and implications for public health: Public health often attempts to express value through economism, using monetary measures. However, socioecological discourse, expressed for example through direct measures of social and ecological wellbeing, appears more fit for purpose in promoting a fair and sustainable society.https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.13070equityenvironmental sustainabilityclimate changediscourseecofeminism
spellingShingle Valerie Kay
Charles Livingstone
A socioecological discourse of care or an economistic discourse: which fits better with transition?
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
equity
environmental sustainability
climate change
discourse
ecofeminism
title A socioecological discourse of care or an economistic discourse: which fits better with transition?
title_full A socioecological discourse of care or an economistic discourse: which fits better with transition?
title_fullStr A socioecological discourse of care or an economistic discourse: which fits better with transition?
title_full_unstemmed A socioecological discourse of care or an economistic discourse: which fits better with transition?
title_short A socioecological discourse of care or an economistic discourse: which fits better with transition?
title_sort socioecological discourse of care or an economistic discourse which fits better with transition
topic equity
environmental sustainability
climate change
discourse
ecofeminism
url https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.13070
work_keys_str_mv AT valeriekay asocioecologicaldiscourseofcareoraneconomisticdiscoursewhichfitsbetterwithtransition
AT charleslivingstone asocioecologicaldiscourseofcareoraneconomisticdiscoursewhichfitsbetterwithtransition
AT valeriekay socioecologicaldiscourseofcareoraneconomisticdiscoursewhichfitsbetterwithtransition
AT charleslivingstone socioecologicaldiscourseofcareoraneconomisticdiscoursewhichfitsbetterwithtransition