Rethinking the 'global' in global health: a dialectic approach.
Rethinking the 'global' in global health: a dialectic approach.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1744-8603-6-19
复制
发表时间：
2010-10-28
影响因子：
10.8
通讯作者：
Bozorgmehr K
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bozorgmehr K
目前对“全球卫生”的定义缺乏对“全球”一词的具体说明。这场辩论提出并讨论了“全球健康”的现有定义以及其中固有的一个共同问题。它旨在提供一种理解“全球健康”的方法，同时避免冗余。注意力集中在“全球”的不同概念在其应用营养不良的辩证法;艾滋病毒，结核病和疟疾;和孕产妇死亡率。进一步关注的是附加到“全球卫生”的定义和悖论参与试图定义该领域的规范性目标。手稿确定了“全球”的外延为“世界范围”，“超越国界”和“整体”。第四个概念的“全球”作为“超地域”提出和定义为“在世界任何地方的健康的社会决定因素之间的联系”。这些名称的修辞力量对“全球健康”的目标产生了很大影响，例如营养不良;艾滋病毒、结核病和疟疾;以及孕产妇死亡率。“全球”作为“世界范围的”、作为“超越国界的”和作为“整体的”存在着矛盾，而这些矛盾可以通过“全球”作为“超领域的”的第四个概念来克服。所提出的概念中所固有的“全球-地方-关系”与有影响力的人类学和社会学观点相一致，尽管使用了不同的术语。与此同时，它可以与其他关于“全球”的观点或修正明显冲突的观点组合在一起。作者主张从“全球健康”定义中分离规范性目标，以避免所谓的“纠缠问题”。相反，有人认为，拟议的概念构成了一个不委婉的方法来描述固有的政治化领域的“全球健康”。虽然全球作为世界范围和全球作为超越国界是误导和生产冗余与公共和国际卫生，全球作为超领土提供了“新的”对象的研究，教育和实践，同时避免冗余。与作为一项人权的“健康”相联系，这一概念保留了“全球健康”一词的修辞力量，以进行更创新的学习、研究和实践。辩证法的方法表明，“全球”一词的不同概念所涉及的矛盾只是表面上的性质，而不是排他性的，但必须被视为相互补充，如果期望在最后一步是有用的。
Current definitions of 'global health' lack specificity about the term 'global'. This debate presents and discusses existing definitions of 'global health' and a common problem inherent therein. It aims to provide a way forward towards an understanding of 'global health' while avoiding redundancy. The attention is concentrated on the dialectics of different concepts of 'global' in their application to malnutrition; HIV, tuberculosis & malaria; and maternal mortality. Further attention is payed to normative objectives attached to 'global health' definitions and to paradoxes involved in attempts to define the field. The manuscript identifies denotations of 'global' as 'worldwide', as 'transcending national boundaries' and as 'holistic'. A fourth concept of 'global' as 'supraterritorial' is presented and defined as 'links between the social determinants of health anywhere in the world'. The rhetorical power of the denotations impacts considerably on the object of 'global health', exemplified in the context of malnutrition; HIV, tuberculosis & malaria; and maternal mortality. The 'global' as 'worldwide', as 'transcending national boundaries' and as 'holistic' house contradictions which can be overcome by the fourth concept of 'global' as 'supraterritorial'. The 'global-local-relationship' inherent in the proposed concept coheres with influential anthropological and sociological views despite the use of different terminology. At the same time, it may be assembled with other views on 'global' or amend apparently conflicting ones. The author argues for detaching normative objectives from 'global health' definitions to avoid so called 'entanglement-problems'. Instead, it is argued that the proposed concept constitutes an un-euphemistical approach to describe the inherently politicised field of 'global health'. While global-as-worldwide and global-as-transcending-national-boundaries are misleading and produce redundancy with public and international health, global-as-supraterritorial provides 'new' objects for research, education and practice while avoiding redundancy. Linked with 'health' as a human right, this concept preserves the rhetorical power of the term 'global health' for more innovative forms of study, research and practice. The dialectic approach reveals that the contradictions involved in the different notions of the term 'global' are only of apparent nature and not exclusive, but have to be seen as complementary to each other if expected to be useful in the final step.
影响因子：
168.9
作者：
Amorim, Celso;Douste-Blazy, Philippe;Pibulsonggram, Nitya
通讯作者：
Pibulsonggram, Nitya