wow-inequalities/02-data/intermediate/wos_sample/242c7dca55c785380b254167c7cff15f-eckenwiler-lisa/info.yaml

1372 lines
47 KiB
YAML
Raw Normal View History

2023-09-28 14:46:10 +00:00
abstract: 'When the sick, injured, or dying arrive in a hospital - often along with
family members - they find themselves on an alien landscape. Elderly
people enter unfamiliar territory as they move from home or hospital
into a long-term care setting, which may be the first in a series of
placements for their final years. African Americans have been subjected
for decades to oppressive urban planning policies, including `serial
displacement'', which have systematically uprooted and dispersed them,
their homes, and their places of business and worship. Around the world
currently, 65 million people are displaced, most trying to escape
uninhabitable environs involving war, persecution, drought, and famine.
Some of these migrants and asylum-seekers reside in and around refugee
camps but many are in urban enclaves or isolated outside them in
desperately inhospitable conditions. Some are trying to integrate and
make homes in new countries. Still more people are coming in perilous
flight from the unfurling effects of climate change. `We are
place-lings,'' according to Ed Casey, `never without emplaced
experiences''. Lorraine Code, explaining our social and geographical
embeddedness and interdependence, describes us as `ecological subjects''.
By recognizing place, we can deepen our appreciation for the ways in
which we are radically relational, that is, interdependent with people,
non-human others, and particular locations. This robust and realistic
conception of our relational nature and its implications for health and
ethics deserves more attention. Elsewhere I have argued for `ethical
place-making'' as morally obligatory for supporting the capability to be
healthy, or health justice, for ecological subjects. Drawing on this
conception of persons as creatures situated in specific social
relations, geographic locations, and atmospheric and material
environments, here I emphasize the importance of place and argue for an
ideal and practice of `ethical place-making'' as an essential and,
indeed, ethically required way of demonstrating and forging future
solidarity and advancing justice, particularly health justice. The paper
is organized as follows. In Section 2, I explain what I mean by place
and examine the relationships, revealed by contemporary research in
social epidemiology, between place and health. In Section 3, I build on
the conception of persons as ecological subjects to ground what Carol
Gould has called `solidaristic recognition'', which, as I will interpret
it, requires us to reckon with the significance of place in our
relational nature. I then link solidaristic recognition to the ideal and
practice of ethical place-making and, in turn, the capability to be
healthy, that is, health justice. I argue that place-based interventions
should be principal and prioritized ways of showing solidarity and
promoting justice - especially health justice - for ecological subjects,
above all those who are displaced and/or insecurely placed. Where
solidaristic relations do not prevail, ethical place-making has the
potential to catalyze and nurture them and, over time, to advance
justice.
A full discussion of the complex and contested relationship between
solidarity and global justice is beyond the scope of what I can expound
on here; I follow - and present concrete manifestations of - the views
of Iris Marion Young and Carol Gould in seeing solidarity as having, as
Gould puts it, a crucial `role not only in motivating people''s
commitment to the realization of global justice but {[}also]
contribut{[}ing] to its construction or constitution.'' In Section 4, I
present examples of ethical place-making inspired by solidaristic
recognition in a range of domains significant for bioethics - clinical
and long-term care and urban planning in the United States and
Netherlands, and refugee care and resettlement in Lebanon and Germany.
In the cases presented, I describe how the particular elements of
ethical place-making, emerging from solidaristic recognition, are
realized, and so support the conditions for the capability to healthy,
or health justice. Following this discussion, I move on to the
conclusion. Place `is no fixed thing''. The accounts of geographers,
philosophers, and some architects emphasize our embodied experience in
or around place(s), place''s significance for the development of our
subjectivity and identity, and, finally, the complex social processes
that help to create, maintain, and transform places (and, in turn,
bodies and subjectivities). The understanding I follow here defines
`place'' in terms of the material environment, and how we, as embodied
beings, move in, absorb, shape and are shaped by it, and how we, as
social agents, interact with and within it, gather and attach particular
meanings, and forge relationships and identities. A growing body of
research in social epidemiology using realist methods explains in
increasingly rich, if grim, detail the ways in which social conditions
and features of the external environment, including place-related
factors, affect health and longevity, and contribute to preventable
health inequities. We are talking about components of the built
environment, like land use, housing design, materials and quality,
street layout and transportation, exposure to toxins, and violence,
access to food and activity options; and urban design or decline. Air
and water quality, and access to green space are other place-related
factors. We should also include climate and the potential in specific
locations for climate-related disasters in our scope of concern.
So-called `determinants'' such as these operate independently and
interactively at various levels and in different contexts to generate
harms to health and health inequities. On terrain more typical for
bioethics, clinical and other care settings, as currently configured,
are notoriously disorienting, anxiety-inducing, and in some ways
dangerous for physical, psychological, and existential health.
Researchers have detailed a range of effects of institutional design,
including the effects of noise and light on recovery times, and the ways
architecture can shape interactions and experiences. Long-term care
settings are infamous for poor conditions. A lack of light, private
space, and access to the outdoors, for example, and isolation from
broader social surroundings, adversely affect the health of elderly
people. People fleeing war, persecution, and famine endure desperate
conditions that threaten health. Many reside in camps (in the form of
transit camps and official refugee camps, detention centers, etc.
) while others dwell in slums or other settlements - primarily in urban
areas - segregated from the majority population. These people suffer
from a range of complex physical and mental health conditions. Before or
during transit and in camps and other settings, they face food
insecurity, risk of communicable disease, fear, violence, loss, and
other experiences. If there is access to health services it is often
restricted to acute medical care, and not equipped to adequately address
chronic or mental health conditions or the social determinants of health
needs. Migrants and asylum-seeking people thus lack crucial capabilities
to be healthy. It is not that a relationship between place and health is
a modern epiphany. Hippocrates'' Airs, waters, and places, the
epidemiological work of Louis-Rene Villerme and Rudolph Virchow in the
19th century, and the histories of public health and urban planning, all
recognized the importance of environmental conditions. The asylums for
the mentally ill in the late 19th century reveal an attention, if not
yet evidence-based, for place in care and healing. Inspired by the Moral
Treatment movement, New Enlightenment intellectuals, and health
advocates like Dorthea Dix, Thomas Kirkbride established professional
guidelines on institutional layout and room design for patients. Realist
methods in social epidemiology, more recently, have deepened our
appreciation and understanding of the processes at work on our corporeal
nature, and our entanglement with the world around us. We are situated
socially, materially, and geographically, and vulnerable as creatures
who need care and who also need to `fit'' with the places in which we
dwell and through which we navigate. We are, in short, ecological
subjects, beings for whom social interdependence and geographic
locatedness are vital. As I will argue below, health justice, or the
capability to be healthy, therefore demands thoughtful attention to
place and the conditions that create and sustain places. In the next
section, I explain the relationship between recognizing people as
ecological subjects and the ideal and practice of solidarity.
Solidarity, as I will define it, refers to reaching out through engaging
our moral imaginations across social and/or geographic distance and
asymmetry to recognize and assist others who are vulnerable, in some
cases, acutely, and, over time, advance justice. As a practice,
solidarity involves two core `enacted commitments''. The first commitment
is to engaging our moral imaginations and recognizing others in need, or
what I will describe below as solidaristic recognition. The second
commitment is to responsive action. This hybrid definition draws upon
the inspirational work of Iris Marion Young, Carol Gould, Fuyuki
Kurasawa, and Prainsack and Buyx, all of whom build upon a long and rich
history of interpretations of solidarity. Recognizing the suffering of
the displaced and others who are `implaced'' in conditions unable to
sustain them follows from the most minimal appreciation of people as
ecological subjects, relational creatures who are densely enmeshed in
social relations as well as spatial locations. While my analysis differs
substantially, to describe this here I use Carol Gould''s term,
`solidaristic recognition''. Gould distinguishes between what she calls
`rigorous recognition'' and `generous recognition''.
Rigorous recognition appreciates the equality of all people through an
essentially cognitive process involving an acknowledgment of our fellow
humanity. The generous genre, which she recasts as `solidaristic
recognition'', involves empathy, or an affective link with others, and
focuses on our `mutual interdependence and common needs''. Solidaristic
recognition conceives of others as `equal in their difference'', that is,
their distinctive social group membership and individual particularity.
On my own interpretation, solidaristic recognition has two varieties,
neither of which relies on empathy: basic and relational, responsible
recognition. If we conceive of people in ecological terms, basic
recognition (similar to Gould''s `rigorous recognition'') might be
expanded beyond its appreciation of everyone''s equal moral worth to take
account of the significance of place for the equitable flourishing of
all ecological subjects. This most basic form of recognition
acknowledges that we are equal in part because we all share a need to be
`in place'' in settings that can sustain us and support our capacities. A
second, more ethically responsible, form of recognition I will call
relational solidaristic recognition emerges from reckoning more
thoroughly with our radically relational nature as ecological subjects.
This reckoning demands that we conceive of ourselves and others as
embedded but also that we understand that we are constitutive of one
another and our environs. Geographers have described this in terms of
the intersubjectivity of identity and place. In her philosophical
account of ecological subjectivity, Lorraine Code underscores the idea
that we are `made by and making {[}our] relations in {[}asymmetrical]
reciprocity with other subjects and with horizontal ellipsis multiple,
diverse locations''. Seeing not just identities, but also, critically,
place in relational terms, highlights `the variety of interactions
between people who are located differently that go into making places''.
As Iris Young puts it, we `dwell together'' in `complex, causal''
relations of interdependence and in specific atmospheric and material
conditions on earth in geographic regions and neighborhoods, in homes,
and institutions of care and employment. We ecological subjects, then,
contribute to the construction of place - often unintentionally -
through actions and interactions within a larger context of social
structures and processes. These structures and processes serve to enable
some people in the realization of their capacities, yet constrain
others, creating and/or sustaining structural injustice. This is
evidenced, for example, in urban planning policies that spawn
residential segregation or global economic and trade policies that
compel health care workers to migrate and deepen health inequities in
source countries. While basic solidaristic recognition can allow for or
has the potential to generate ethical place-making, relational
recognition understands the ways that our own subjectivities,
identities, and places of dwelling as ecological subjects are formed in
relation to other identities in other places and, crucially, that this
generates responsibilities for justice. It is in this sense that
relational solidaristic recognition is a more responsible form: it
appreciates better-situated ecological subjects'' contributions to the
injustice suffered by the displaced or precariously placed, and aspires
to respond and work toward promoting justice.
Responsiveness , an important epistemic and, in turn, ethical capacity,
is a crucial element for enactments of solidarity in the view I want to
develop. Both Joan Tronto and Elise Springer assign `responsiveness'' a
prominent place in their work. Springer situates `responsiveness'' within
virtue ethics. On her view, it involves a kind of adaptability,
particularly in unfamiliar moral terrain, or in the face of concerns
that `resist clear representation''. Springer posits responsiveness as
also involving a commitment to `extend a temporally continuous thread of
attention'' or giving one''s moral attention over time, not episodically
or reactively. Tronto identifies responsiveness as one of four ethical
elements of care, casting it as a moral capacity that involves vigilance
`to the possibilities for abuse that arise with vulnerability''. I would
add another element as integral to responsiveness, drawn specifically
from ecological epistemology: an ability to show finely tuned
sensitivity to context, that is, the particularity of people and
circumstance, and give attention and action that is fitting. Solidarity,
enacted, should emerge from a disposition committed to responsiveness
understood in terms of these capacities, if it is to meet the mark. In
the next section I turn to responsive action that arises from
solidaristic recognition, in particular, efforts at place-making for the
displaced. Innovation, inspired by ecological thinking and increasingly
evidence-based, is underway. `Place-making'' is a set of intentional
practices spanning different disciplines that targets neighborhoods,
parks and paths, features of landscape, housing developments,
streetscapes, long-term care facilities, and hospitals. With and without
attention to health, it is either referenced explicitly or somehow
central to key international documents and declarations including the
Sustainable Development Goals and UN Habitat''s New Urban Agenda. It is
on the agendas of the World Health Organization (WHO), the US Centers
for Disease Control (CDC), even the World Bank, some think tanks and
foundations, and a major US corporation. Public health leaders point to
place-based interventions as `the new frontier''. In other work I have
interpreted ethical place-making, a notion that first surfaced in the
geography literature, as a core component of an enabling,
capabilities-oriented conception of justice. Grounded in ecological
thinking and an ecological conception of persons, ethical place-making
understands all people as embedded socially and spatially, and often
enmeshed in relationships of structural injustice that threaten health.
Key elements of ethical place-making include: nurturing relations of
care and interdependence; protecting bodily integrity; supporting
autonomy, not interpreted in terms of individual self-reliance, but in
the relational sense that sees us as originating, persisting, and
flourishing within relations of care and interdependence, given ongoing
opportunities for self-directed thought and action; promoting stability
and a sense of rootedness and, at the same time, supporting generative
movement; and finally, where necessary, responding to inequities. Below
I offer selected examples of place-making drawn from a range of domains
pertinent to bioethics.
After describing them, I explain why they count as instances of ethical
place-making inspired by (and potentially generating more) solidaristic
recognition and how they stand to promote - especially health - justice
and in some cases address health inequities. I start at the level of
community and public health with an urban planning example, and from
there, turn to a clinical and then a long-term care setting. These three
case studies come from the global north. The final examples explore
(mostly health-centered) place-making efforts in refugee reception and
resettlement, sketching innovations in Germany and also Lebanon, a
country that borders the war in Syria and ranks fourth worldwide as a
host to refugees. Further research will yield additional instances of
solidarity and place-making, particularly for health, in other parts of
the world.
In {[}a] system of the city as weaving, {[}creating] crosswise threads
enables solidarity, and fundamental to solidarity is the free system of
movement horizontal ellipsis `Intentional shrinkage'', `sorting'', and
`serial displacement'' are terms given to the urban land use and
`development'' policies that systematically shredded the social and
material fabric in and around African American neighborhoods in New York
City. Public health researchers have linked these policies and the
consequent displacement of families, businesses, churches and more, to
the AIDS epidemic, addiction, asthma, post-traumatic stress, and
obesity. Working together, citizens, planners, and researchers responded
with the Giraffe Path (GP), a 6-mile trail from Central Park to the
Cloisters. The walking and biking path is a project emerging explicitly
from the kind of solidarity described above: the recognition of the city
and its people as ecologically embedded, with enduring health inequities
as a result of displacements, and responsive action in the form of
(re)creating place with and for ecological subjects. The GP is based on
a conception of the city and its neighborhoods and residents as
interdependent - and is designed to restore connections between formerly
fractured communities around and across the Harlem River and, at the
same time, to support outdoor physical activity. The closure of the
bridge, that had long linked neighbors, as a `crime-prevention'' measure
for gentrifying neighborhoods, severed (in a pattern repeated in cities
everywhere) relationships between people according to categories of
class and race. By (re)connecting places and people and mending - as its
designers say, `weaving'', `re-stitching'' - the GP helps restore these
and cultivate new relations. At the same time, as part of the City Life
Is Moving Bodies (CLIMB) Project, the GP''s creation of flow and
unimpeded movement is being celebrated as `a victory for the city''s
entire circulatory system''. The attention paid to (solidaristic
recognition of) the importance of place for health and most
significantly, health inequities, in this instance of ethical
place-making is an exception and not the norm. Urban renewal policies
and planning tend to prioritize physical, economic, and social issues,
yet few focus explicitly on health or show concern for health equity.
Another essential dimension for future solidarity is the potential for
political engagement generated by the GP.
As Iris Young argues (and the inset quote implies), segregation obscures
from the affluent an appreciation of their privilege, and, by limiting
interaction, constrains political communication. This erodes the
potential for solidarity and perpetuates social injustice. The GP
designers aspire to promote solidaristic recognition through
facilitating new interactions, forging new relations, and evolving as
ecological subjects.
We must pay attention to the lived spatial significance of patients''
experience of health and illness if we are going to treat them fully and
well. Doing so is one step of paying attention to a person horizontal
ellipsis The terrain and overall ambience of the clinical setting is
famously hostile to non-medical people, notably the ones it exists to
serve. Place-centered innovation in hospitals and other centers of care
is a growing niche, recognizing the harms done to ecological subjects -
here patients and their families - in the `care'' of institutions built
as medical assembly lines organized around time until discharge or
demise. One neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) at the Royal United
Hospital in Bath, U.K., recognizes the importance of place for the
health and well-being of vulnerable ecological subjects and puts into
practice a concept known as `secure base'', which wraps around patients
and families `like a hug''. The unit''s design also demonstrates
solidarity with them in recognizing the effects of typical clinical
settings and, in contrast, boasts lots of natural light, greatly reduced
noise, private nooks, and a horseshoe-shape design that reflects the
progression a newborn will take from intensive care to a neonatal room.
In this case of ethical place-making, innovators aim to create a habitat
that nurtures overlapping relations of care wherein babies sleep longer,
and parents are perhaps a little less distressed, and more able to
participate in care and interact with clinical care providers. As noted
above, the structure of this temporary dwelling enables families to
better understand, through their embodied experience, the clinical
pathway the infants will follow until discharge, which in turn likely
gives a boost to their sense of agency and empowerment and helps to
level the playing field with clinicians. Designed by a long-term care
nurse in response to her observations and experience of existing
institutions, Hogeway Village accommodates elderly people with dementia
in a setting meant to resemble a real European neighborhood. It has a
market, cafe, salon, theater, sidewalks, and ample green space.
Different models, tailored to appeal to specific social and cultural
groups, are available. Staff engage with residents without clinical garb
and simultaneously provide skilled care. Family members are integrally
involved in care plans. Hogeway is built to protect yet not restrict,
allowing residents a wide range of movement and access to the outdoors.
The availability of palliative care ensures that residents do not have
to relocate at the end of life, which allows for continuity of care and
relationships. Another benefit is that family members need not navigate
new terrains, or settings, of care or transportation as elders'' needs
evolve. Emerging research on long-term care settings designed more like
homes and communities suggests that residents are more socially engaged
and active, and experience better overall `well-being''.
Preliminary evidence also suggests that integrating families in care can
improve relations with care workers, as well as resident care and
health.
European cities and regions have demonstrated their horizontal ellipsis
willingness to express solidarity with horizontal ellipsis the world''s
refugees via participation in resettlement. Solidarity is at the moral
center of humanitarian action, and place-making by other names has long
been integral to humanitarian operations. From an emphasis on emergency
and temporary assistance, humanitarians have expanded the scope and
practice of `solidarity'' given the nature of current conflicts and the
creation of dependencies that may lead to more sustained commitments.
Their work now increasingly overlaps with development efforts to bolster
host countries'' capacities to receive, resettle, and integrate
asylum-seekers and other migrants for the long term. Solidarity, indeed,
is the basis of commitments to refugee resettlement in international
humanitarian law. In 2004, the Mexico Plan of Action to Strengthen
International Protection of Refugees in Latin America (MPA), which
encompassed regional responsibility sharing, the expansion of
resettlement space, reception capacity, and long-term integration,
highlighted solidarity as a guiding principle for support of refugees
from Columbia and their host countries. Northern Europe has been the
preferred destination for refugees from Syria and other places where war
has driven people from their homes. Germany, especially its cities,
hosts more recent asylum-seekers than any other EU nation. Urban areas
have absorbed two-thirds of the world''s refugees and now face the work
of integration. The region offers myriad examples of efforts in ethical
place-making spawned by solidaristic recognition. In both Hamburg and
Berlin, organizing around place has been a key strategy in welcoming and
helping to integrate new arrivals. In Berlin, city planners have
employed a strategy of creating container villages to help refugees feel
secure and foster a sense of embeddedness-in-community. While
formalized, state-administered efforts have unfolded, citizen volunteers
have designed innovative responses to link refugees with needed
services, helping to integrate them and provide a sense of place. The
coordinated state and civil society effort, in particular, is an
inspiring example of politically and socially constructed solidarity,
supported and advanced by what Christine Straehle calls a `cosmopolitan
avant-garde'' of citizens. Hamburg is also innovative in linking services
across sectors like food, shelter, education, work skills, and legal
advice, appreciating the importance of integrating services for those
who have endured profound dispersion and fragmentation. The city
addressed housing needs by redesigning existing buildings and engaged
local communities in deciding on locations in order to help ensure a
welcoming, safe environment and avoid the possibility of local
neighborhood resistance. The countries, such as Jordan, Lebanon, and
Turkey that serve as the principal hosts to refugees fleeing Syria,
Afghanistan, and elsewhere, are organizing around so-called `resilience''
strategies, which aim at bolstering host countries'' capacities to accept
and integrate asylum-seekers and other migrants for the long-term. This
management philosophy deserves more sustained discussion. I highlight
here another civil society initiative involving ethical place-making.
In Lebanon during the war (1975-1990) public spaces were among the most
dangerous places. Now they serve as temporary shelter areas for migrants
and refugees displaced from neighboring conflict who face fear,
discrimination, and violence in their new environs. In this context, one
architect saw an opportunity: `I thought by promoting place-making in
Lebanon we can join the efforts of local {[}civil society] actors, since
horizontal ellipsis place-making is based on networking and bringing
people together.'' With his guidance, youth in Beirut participated in
identifying and recreating public spaces with the aims of reducing
violence, promoting inclusion, interaction, and community-building.
Along with place-making for the sake of social integration, place-based
interventions in healthcare services are surfacing in response to
contemporary migration patterns. Adapting to the mobility of many
displaced people who are, not accessing services in camps, for instance,
humanitarian and local actors have reorganized healthcare delivery. The
Blue Dot Hubs developed by UNHCR and partners to provide care and
services to people en route are a specific example of a response - a
place-making intervention to `changing therapeutic geographies'' in
modern crises. In the context of resettlement, interventions focused on
the creation of `therapeutic landscapes'' aim specifically at displaced
children as they resettle in new countries. Through recultivating
cultural traditions, building social networks, and creating safe places,
young people can create new homes. These examples depict different modes
of displacement and distinct populations situated in specific kinds of
settings and in particular - yet in all cases asymmetrical - relations
of power. In each case, responsive action, keenly sensitive to context,
emerges from solidaristic recognition, either basic or relational. In
some cases it aims explicitly at justice. We can see specific elements
of solidarity-sparked ethical place-making across cases. Support for
relations of care is at the heart of the efforts made in the Bath NICU
and Hogeway Village designs, and also in the GP and initiatives for
refugees. Attention to the need for rootedness and movement is
manifested in these civil society efforts to welcome and create
material, social, economic, and political space for refugees; it is also
an organizing principle for the GP, Hogeway, and Bath''s NICU.
Transformative autonomy is evident in the GP, the therapeutic landscape
projects, Hogeway, and the NICU. Attention to inequities, especially
health inequities, motivates the GP and Blue Dot Hubs. In all, the
creators - architects, designers, planners, carers, and citizens -
recognize the `users'', let us say `dwellers'', as ecological subjects and
respond with concerned attention to their distinctive needs, in real
time and over time with the aim of supporting their capabilities,
chiefly to be healthy, and in some cases to remedy injustice. I have
argued that recognizing all people as ecological subjects enables us,
indeed compels us, to forge relations of solidarity and promote justice
through ethical place-making with those who are vulnerable through their
insecure relationship to place.
On the moral landscape(s) of bioethics, an ethic of place-making
expresses and has rich potential for nurturing bonds of solidarity along
with advancing health, social, and global justice with patients and
families, elderly people transitioning to long-term care, urban
populations confronting health inequities, asylum-seekers dwelling in
precarious conditions, and perhaps others. The author declares no
conflict of interest. Casey, E. (2009). Getting back into place: Toward
a renewed understanding of the place-world. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press, p. 321. Code, L. (2006). Ecological thinking. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press. See also Bradotti, R. (2013).
Posthuman relational subjectivity. In P. Rawes (Ed.), Relational
architectural ecologies: Architecture, nature, and subjectivity. New
York, NY: Routledge; Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political
ecology of things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Eckenwiler, L.
(2016). Defining ethical place-making for place-based interventions.
Amer J Pub Health 106, 1944-1946; Eckenwiler, L. (2012). Long-term care,
globalization, and justice. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Gould, C. (2007). Recognition, empathy, and solidarity. In G. W.
Bertram, R. Celikates, C. Laudou, \& D. Lauer (Eds.), Socialite et
reconnaissance. Grammaires de l''humain. Paris, France: Editions
L''Harmattan, p. 260. Gould, C. (2014). Interactive democracy: The social
roots of global justice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp.
119-120. Casey, E. (1997). The fate of place: A philosophical inquiry.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, p. 286. See also Grosz, E.
(1999). Becomings: Explorations in time, memory, and futures. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press; Light, A., \& Smith, J. M. (Eds.) (1998).
Philosophies of place. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield; Cresswell, T.
(Ed.) (2004). Place: A short introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell;
Tschumi, B. (2001). Architecture and disjunction. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press. Casey, op. cit. note 6; Seamon, D. (2013). Lived bodies, place,
and phenomenology: Implications for human rights and environmental
justice. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, 4(2), 143-166.
Marmot, M. (2005). Social determinants of health inequities. Lancet,
365, 1099-1104; Browning, C. R., Bjornstorm, E. E. S., \& Cagney, K. A.
(2011). Health and mortality consequences of the physical environment.
In R. G. Rogers \& E.M. Crimmins (Eds.), International handbook of adult
mortality (pp. 441-464). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; Fitzpatrick,
K., \& Labory, M. (2011). Unhealthy cities: Poverty, race, and place in
America. New York, NY: Francis and Taylor. Ulrich, R. S., Zimring, C.,
Zhu, X., DuBose, J., Seo, H. B., Choi, Y. S., horizontal ellipsis
Joseph, A. (2008). A review of the research literature on evidence based
healthcare design. Health Environments \& Research Design, 1(3), 61-125;
Sternberg, E. (2009). Healing spaces: The science of place and
well-being. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; Papoulias, C.,
Csipke, E., Rose, D., McKellar, S., \& Wykes, T. (2014). The psychiatric
ward as a therapeutic space: Systematic review. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 205, 171-176. Young, I. M. (2005). A room of one''s own: Old
age, extended care, and privacy. In On female body experience. Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press. Guterres, A., \& Spiegel, P. (2012). State
of the world''s refugees: Adapting responses to urban environments.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 308(7), 673-674; Metcalf,
V., Haysom, S., \& Martin, E. (2012). Sanctuary in the city: Urban
displacement and vulnerability in Kabul. London, UK: Humanitarian Policy
Group. Tufan, A. E., Alkin, M. G., \& Bosgelmez, S. (2013).
Post-traumatic stress disorder among asylum seekers and refugees in
Istanbul may be predicted by torture and loss due to violence. Nordic
Journal of Psychiatry, 67(3), 219-224; Jabbar, S. A., \& Zaza, H. I.
(2014). Impact of conflict in Syria on Syrian children at the Zaatari
Refugee Camp in Jordan. Early Child Development and Care, 184(9-10),
1507-1530; Buckley-Zistel, S., Krause, U., \& Loeper, L. (2014). Sexual
and gender-based violence against women in conflict-related refugee
camps: A literature overview. Peripherie, 34(133), 71-89. Wild, V.
(2013). Asylum seekers and public health ethics. In D. Strech, I.
Hirschberg, \& G. Marckmann (Eds.), Ethics in public health and health
policy. Concepts, methods, case studies (pp. 193-208). Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer International. Ackerknecht, E. H. (1948). Hygiene
in France, 1815-1848. Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 22, 117-155;
Coleman, W. (1982). Death is a social disease: Public health and
political economy in early industrial France. Madison, WI: University of
Wisconsin Press; Erickson, A. (2012, Aug 24). A brief history of urban
planning. CityLab.
https://www.citylab.com/life/2012/08/brief-history-birth-urban-planning/
2365/. Yanni, C. (2007). The architecture of madness: Insane asylums in
the United States. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Code,
op. cit. note 2, p. 128. For discussion of these tiers see: Prainsack,
B., \& Buyx, A. (2017). Solidarity in biomedicine and beyond. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press. Gould, op. cit. note 4; Gould, C.
(2007). Transnational solidarities. Journal of Social Philosophy, 38(1),
148-164; Kurasawa, F. (2007). The work of global justice: Human rights
as practices. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; Young, I. M.
(2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press;
Prainsack and Buyx, op. cit. note 17. Gould, op. cit. note 4. Space
constraints preclude a more elaborate discussion of how my account is
situated among the many rich philosophical accounts of `recognition''.
See Schmidt am Busch, H. C., \& Zurn, C. F. (2010). The philosophy of
recognition: Historical and contemporary perspectives. Lanham, MD:
Lexington Books. Gould, op. cit. note 4, p. 259. Code, op. cit. note 2,
p. 128. Raghuram, P., Madge C., \& Noxolo, P. (2009). Rethinking
responsibility and care for a postcolonial world. Geoforum, 40(1), 5-13,
p. 8. Young, op. cit. note 18, p. 224. Eckenwiler 2012. op cit. note 3.
Tronto, J. (1994). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic
of care. New York, NY: Routledge; Springer, E. (2013). Communicating
moral concern: An ethics of critical responsiveness. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press. Springer, op. cit. note 26, p. 141. Ibid: 137. Tronto, op. cit.
note 26, p. 135. Project for Public Spaces. (2016). What is
place-making? New York, NY: PPS; Silerberg, S. (2013). Places in the
making: How place making builds places and communities. Boston, MA: MIT
Press. United Nations (UN). (2015). Sustainable development goals. See
\#11. UN Habitat. The New Urban Agenda. (draft September 2016); United
Nations Task Team on Habitat III. (2015). Habitat III issue papers:
Migration and refugees in urban areas. New York. Available at:
http://unhabitat.
org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Habitat-III-Issue-Papers-and-Policy-Units
\_11-April.pdf. World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for
Europe. (2012). Addressing the social determinants of health: The urban
dimension and the role of local government. Copenhagen: WHO; U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2014). About healthy
places. Atlanta: CDC; Zhan, M., for the World Bank. (2016, Sept 15).
Investing in better public spaces. Presented at Future of Places
Leadership Forum, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Amaro, H. (2014). The action is
upstream: Place-based approaches for achieving population health and
health equity. American Journal of Public Health, 104(6), 964. Raghuram
et al., op. cit. note 22. Eckenwiler 2012, op. cit. note 3. Fullilove,
M. T. (2013). Urban alchemy: Restoring joy in America''s sorted out
cities. New York, NY: New Village Press, p. 164. Fullilove, M. T.
(2004). Root shock: How tearing up city neighborhoods hurts America and
what we can do about it. New York, NY: Ballantine/One World; Fullilove,
M. T. (1996). Psychiatric implications of displacement: Contributions
from the psychology of place. American Journal of Psychiatry, 153(12),
1516-1523. Fullilove, op. cit. note 38. Sullivan, R. (2015, June 23).
The town shrink. New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/magazine/the-town-shrink.html.
Mehdipanah, R., Manzano, A., Borrell, C., Malmusi, D., Rodriguez-Sanz,
M., Greenhelgh, J., horizontal ellipsis Pawson, R. (2015). Exploring
complex causal pathways between urban renewal, health and health
inequality using a theory-driven realist approach. Social Science \&
Medicine, 124, 266-274. Young, op. cit. note 18, p. 205. Jacobson, K.
(2017). The living arena of existential health: Space, autonomy, and
embodiment. In J. Donohoe (Ed.), Place and phenomenology. London, UK:
Rowman and Littlefield, p. 137; Kaufman, S. (2005). And a time to die:
How American hospitals shape the end of life. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press. Barton, H., Thompson, S., Burgess, S., \& Grant, M.
(2015). The Routledge handbook of planning for health and well-being.
New York, NY: Routledge; Ulrich et al., op. cit. note 9; Rube, K.
(2016). The case for healthy places: How health institutions and others
can support public places that improve health and well-being. New York,
NY: Project for Public Spaces. Tooley, M., \& Marden, B. (2013). Inside
Bath''s new neonatal unit. HSJ. Available at:
https://www.hsj.co.uk/technology-and-innovation/inside-baths-new-neonata
l-unit-/5064365. article Zimmerman, S., Bowers, J., Cohen, L. W.,
Grabowski, D. C., Horn, S. D., Kemper, P., for the THRIVE Research
Collaborative. (2016). New evidence on the green house model of nursing
home care: Synthesis of findings and implications for policy, practice,
and research. Health Services Research, 51(Suppl), 475-495.
International Catholic Migration Commission. (2014). A place to live, a
place to stay: A good practice guide for housing in refugee
resettlement. p. 3. Available at:
https://www.resettlement.eu/sites/icmc.tttp.eu/files/ICMC\_SHARE\%20A\%2
0Place\%20to\%20Live\_Housing\%20Good\%20Practice\%20Guide.pdf Kaldor.
M. (1999). New and old wars: Organized violence in a global era.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; Fassin, D. (2012). Humanitarian
reason: A moral history of the present. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press. UNHCR. (1988). EXCOM Conclusion no 52, International
solidarity and refugee protection. http://www.unhcr.org/3ae68c433c.html.
Regional Refugee Instruments \& Related (2004).
Mexico Declaration and Plan of Action to Strengthen International
Protection of Refugees in Latin America. Available at:
https://www.oas.org/dil/mexico\_declaration\_plan\_of\_action\_16nov2004
.pdf; Jubilut, L. L., \& Carneiro, W. P. (2011). Resettlement in
solidarity: A new regional approach towards a more humane, durable
solution. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 30(3): 63-86; White, A. G. (2012). A
pillar of protection: Solidarity resettlement for refugees in Latin
America. Washington, DC: UNHCR US Committee for Refugee and Immigrants,
p. 21. International Organization for Migration. (2015). World Migration
Report 2015 - Migrants and cities: New partnerships to manage mobility.
Le Grand-Saconnex: Switzerland. See Katz, B., Noring, L., \& Garrelts,
N. (2016). Cities and refugees - The German experience. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution. Adenauer Stiftung, K. (2016). Local refugee aid,
sustainable local integration measures and identity-creating borough
management.
http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas\_43128-544-1-30.pdf?160513115517. See also
Martin, C. (2016). Designing homes to welcome refugees. Lancet,
388(10050), 1150. Straehle, C. (2009). Politically constructed
solidarity: The idea of a cosmopolitan avant-garde. Contemporary
Political Theory, 9(1), 22-32. Bellamy, C., Haysom, S., Wake, C., \&
Barbelet, V. (2017). The lives and livelihoods of Syrian refugees: A
study of refugee perspectives on their institutional environment in
Turkey and Jordan. London, UK: Humanitarian Policy Group. Placemaking
for Peacemaking in Beirut. (2017) . An interview with Rony Al Jalkh. The
City at Eye Level. p. 6.
https://thecityateyelevel.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/placemaking-for-pe
acemaking-rony.pdf. UNICEF. (2016). UNHCR, UNICEF launch Blue Dot hubs
to boost protection for children and families on the move across Europe.
Available at: http://www.unicef.org/media/media\_90316.html?p=print me.
Dewachi, O., Skelton, M., Nguyen, V. K., Fouad, F. M., Sitta, G. A.,
Maasri, Z., \& Giacaman, R. (2014). Changing therapeutic geographies of
the Iraqi and Syrian wars. Lancet, 383, 449-457. Denov, M., \& Akesson,
B. (2013). Neither here nor there: Place and place-making in the lives
of separated children. International Journal of Migration, Health \&
Social Care, 9(2), 56-70; Sampson, R., \& Gifford, S. M. (2010).
Place-making, settlement, and well-being: The therapeutic landscapes of
recently arrived refugee youth. Health and Place, 16, 116-131.
INTRODUCTION PLACE AND HEALTH: ECOLOGICAL SUBJECTS ECOLOGICAL
SUBJECTIVITY AND SOLIDARITY Solidaristic recognition Responsiveness
SOLIDARITY (AND HEALTH JUSTICE) ENACTED: ETHICAL PLACE-MAKING Community
and public health Care settings Refugee assistance and integration The
elements of ethical place-making CONCLUSION CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Footnotes Drawing on a conception of people as `ecological subjects'',
creatures situated in specific social relations, locations, and material
environments, I want to emphasize the importance of place and
place-making for basing, demonstrating, and forging future solidarity.
Solidarity, as I will define it here, involves reaching out through
moral imagination and responsive action across social and/or geographic
distance and asymmetry to assist other people who are vulnerable, and to
advance justice. Contained in the practice of solidarity are two core
`enacted commitments'', first, to engaging our moral imaginations and
recognizing others in need and, second, to responsive action.
Recognizing the suffering of displacement and responding through
place-making should follow from even the most simplistic understanding
of people as `implaced''. Recognition, furthermore, that places are
created and sustained, transformed, or neglected in ways that foster or
perpetuate inequities, including health inequities, generates
responsibilities concerning place-making. Place-based interventions, on
either count, should be principal and, indeed, prioritized ways of
showing solidarity for the vulnerable and promoting justice. Where
solidaristic relations do not prevail, place-making can catalyze and
nurture them, and over time advance justice. On the moral landscapes of
bioethics, the terrain where care and health are or should be at the
center of attention, an ethic of place and place-making for those who
have been displaced - patients, the elderly, urban populations, and
asylum-seekers, for instance - expresses and has rich potential for
nurturing bonds of solidarity.'
affiliation: 'Eckenwiler, L (Corresponding Author), George Mason Univ, Dept Philosophy,
4400 Univ Dr, Fairfax, VA 22030 USA.
Eckenwiler, Lisa, George Mason Univ, Dept Philosophy, 4400 Univ Dr, Fairfax, VA
22030 USA.'
author: Eckenwiler, Lisa
author-email: leckenwi@GMU.EDU
author_list:
- family: Eckenwiler
given: Lisa
da: '2023-09-28'
doi: 10.1111/bioe.12538
eissn: 1467-8519
files: []
issn: 0269-9702
journal: BIOETHICS
keywords: 'displacement; justice; migrants; migration; place-making; refugees;
solidarity'
keywords-plus: HEALTH; CARE; PLACEMAKING; REFUGEES
language: English
month: NOV
number: 9, SI
number-of-cited-references: '77'
pages: 562-568
papis_id: f15f38f4529d552d42b6385f067b69de
ref: Eckenwiler2018displacementsolidari
researcherid-numbers: 'Baldissera, Annalisa/AHD-6334-2022
Marques, Isabel Cristina/P-8319-2019
Leung, Wing Yin/HLW-3074-2023
Fazli, Ghazal/AAE-8320-2022'
times-cited: '33'
title: 'Displacement and solidarity: An ethic of place-making'
2023-10-01 08:15:07 +00:00
type: article
2023-09-28 14:46:10 +00:00
unique-id: WOS:000450332600004
usage-count-last-180-days: '147'
usage-count-since-2013: '2205'
volume: '32'
web-of-science-categories: Ethics; Medical Ethics; Social Issues; Social Sciences,
Biomedical
year: '2018'