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

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'
type: article
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'