Where species meet and mingle: endemic human-virus relations, embodied communication and more-than-human agency at the Common Cold Unit 1946–90
Where species meet and mingle: endemic human-virus relations, embodied communication and more-than-human agency at the Common Cold Unit 1946–90
复制标题
物种相遇和混合的地方：1946-90 年普通感冒病房流行的人与病毒关系、具体交流和超越人类的代理
DOI：
10.1177/1474474011422029
复制
发表时间：
2012
影响因子：
1.6
通讯作者：
B. Greenhough
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Greenhough
艾滋病毒/艾滋病和H5 N1等流行病为限制人类与病毒之间的接触和混合提供了令人信服的理由。地理学家已经开始研究这些生物（不）安全的空间，强调流行病如何积极地重新配置社会和空间关系，因为人类寻求应对病毒威胁。这种方法为地理学家介入当代生物政治辩论提供了一条重要途径，但这种分析也是通过他们研究的流行病空间来定义的。相比之下，本文探讨了更多的地方性空间的人与病毒的关系，并侧重于本体论的政治：人类和病毒的身体，他们居住的社会物质世界的物质性，以及他们回应对方的存在和代理的方式。本文从人类和动物地理学以及Donna Haraway的工作中获得灵感，研究了英国的普通感冒研究单位（CCU），鼓励人类和病毒相遇并混合，以便科学家可以研究普通感冒。提出了两个关键论点。首先，关注科学家如何在CCU中容纳病毒，引起了人们对人类和病毒重新配置它们之间关系的风险和益处的关注。第二，呼应最近在健康地理学中对健康和疾病的具体理解，这是一个认识到人类与病毒关系是如何通过具体交流培养的案例。我的结论是，与其将病毒视为需要根除的外部威胁，我们不如认识到我们是如何学会并正在学会与我们的病毒同伴共同生活的。
Epidemics such as HIV/AIDS and H5N1 provide compelling arguments for restricting meetings and minglings between humans and viruses. Geographers have begun to address these spaces of bio(in)security, highlighting how epidemics actively reconfigure social and spatial relations as humans seek to respond to viral threats. This approach offers an important route for geographers to intervene in contemporary biopolitical debate, but such analyses are also defined through the epidemic spaces they study. In contrast, this paper explores the more endemic spaces of human-virus relations and focuses on ontological politics: the materialities of human and viral bodies, the socio-material worlds they inhabit and the ways in which they respond to each other’s presence and agency. Taking inspiration from more-than-human and animal geographies, and the work of Donna Haraway, this paper examines the UK’s Common Cold Research Unit (CCU) where humans and viruses were encouraged to meet and mingle so scientists could study the common cold. Two key arguments are made. First, that focusing on how scientists sought to accommodate viruses at the CCU draws attention to the risks and benefits for both humans and viruses of reconfiguring relations between them. Second, echoing recent moves in health geography towards embodied understandings of health and disease, a case for recognizing how human-virus relations are cultured through embodied communication. I conclude that rather than seeing viruses as an external threat to be eradicated, we might recognize how we have learned and are learning to live endemically with our viral companions.