politics

In the next few blog updates, we will be spotlighting new articles from our June 2016 issue, which you can access in full here. The theme of this special issue is The Clinic in Crisis: Medicine and Politics in the Context of Social Upheaval. This week, we will overview Salih Can Aciksoz’s article “Medical Humanitarianism Under Atmospheric Violence: Health Professionals in the 2013 Gezi Protests in Turkey.” Read the full article here.

Aciksoz’s article begins by painting a scene. In the summer of 2013, protests erupted throughout Turkey, leading to violent clashes between armed police forces and civilian protestors. Humanitarian health workers began to establish make-shift infirmaries near known sites of conflict to treat wounded protestors, yet soon themselves became targets of the police who directed tear gas and turned their weapons upon the infirmaries. Those tasked with quashing riots and subduing protests soon fixed their ire on the health professionals who cared for wounded protestors: viewing these clinicians not as neutral aid workers, but instead as complicit members of the uprisings they were attempting to quell. In time, emergency healthcare offered to protestors was deemed criminal activity by the Turkish government.

The author frames the Gezi Protests in terms of the security of medical spaces. Medical humanitarianism, he notes, is premised on the neutrality of care giving centers which serve as a “safe space” for medical aid to be delivered in times of “crisis” to anyone in need. However, this designation as a safe space relies on the authority of a state to recognize it as such. The Turkish government’s criminalization of the humanitarian infirmaries aligned health professionals with protestors, despite any claims to political neutrality. In Turkey, the ability for make-shift infirmaries to serve as neutral care centers was further threatened by the use of a particular weapon: tear gas and similar chemical weapons. An indiscriminate gas could transform entire physical areas– especially enclosed ones– into dangerous structures where all people were at risk of exposure. The use of gas by police forces inside clinics prevented these spaces from being both politically neutral and medically safe for patients and health professionals within.

The state’s designation of infirmaries as a site of criminal activity, and health professionals’ attendance to protestors as insurgent, did not always align with the accounts that Ackisoz collected from Turkish clinicians themselves. Even whenever health professionals confessed that they sympathized with the cause of the protestors, they nevertheless distinguished their political beliefs from their medical obligation. Many described their medical involvement with the protests as a natural response to crisis: as understandable as if they were responding to victims of an earthquake or other disaster. Yet their work also bordered on activism, as numerous clinicians sought to aid protestors after noting the failures of state-operated hospitals and ambulances to attend to the medical needs of all injured protestors.

In sum, Ackisoz argues that what constitutes “medical humanitarianism” borders on many other domains of society: on the state, on the government’s definition of both criminality and on appropriate use of force, on what constitutes political dissidence and whether or not “humanitarianism” is strictly neutral whenever any medical action has the potential to shed light on political failings. The article demonstrates that the ethnographic and social constructivist lenses are well-suited to the analysis of the troubled boundaries between politics and medicine, and between healing and the state in periods of upheaval.

On Friday, September 25th, the UN released its new plan for global development through 2030: the sustainable development goals (SDGs).[i] This plan replaces the millennium development goal (MDG) plan that expires at the end of 2015, and offers a new 17-point agenda focused on social equality, infrastructure, technology, and environmental conservation.[ii] Of note to medical anthropologists, global health workers, and other scholars in social medicine is the continued focus on health and well being as the third item amidst the seventeen goals. The SDG plan champions health “for all at all ages,” although it proposes no specific goals for improving elder care despite the language stressing health across ages. Maternal and reproductive health, substance abuse, traffic deaths, and universal health care coverage are key issues addressed in the SDGs.

Emblem of the UN via Wikimedia Commons

Proponents of the new SDGs, like the World Bank, argue that the plan’s emphasis on both developed and developing countries creates a shared impetus for bolstering food security, education, and access to quality health care; likewise, it suggests that these issues are global ones that cross national borders, and do not exist at the state level alone.[iii] Others criticize the SDGs as too ambitious, arguing that global authorities already struggle to aid migrants and peoples in crisis[iv], stating that the goals are too broad and thus not focused enough to produce observable change[v], and highlighting the irony of combating climate change while promising electricity for all by 2030.[vi]

Anthropologists have long held an interest in international development as a site of cross-cultural exchange, a relic of colonialism, and as a paternalistic model of societal shepherding of developing nations by the wealthy West and Global North.[vii] Amongst development anthropologists, the sustainable development goals will certainly generate new questions about the connectedness of social inequities with health, autonomy, and human rights in the contemporary age. The goals will similarly continue to attract the interest of scholars studying biomedicine and global health in diverse cultural settings.

In addition, the SDGs will no doubt capture the attention of anthropologists in science and technology studies (STS) with the plan’s robust emphasis on technologies, energy, infrastructure, and the environment. This sharpened focus on the connection between social order, science, and technology attests to the applicability of STS approaches to the study of development.

The SDGs arrive at a time of increased concern over social justice and equity on the transnational scale, particularly in the face of the Syrian refugee crisis[viii] and given wide income gaps that impact people in the United States, Chile, Greece, Mexico, and Turkey alike.[ix] Anthropologists are ideally situated to explore the impact of development goals across cultures, and to question how and why these goals may face considerable challenges as they are translated into action, law, and practice at the local level.

[i] http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/sep/25/global-goals-summit-2015-new-york-un-pope-shakira-malala-yousafzai

[ii] https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics

[iii] https://blogs.worldbank.org/voices/global-goals-economic-transformation-in-an-interconnected-world

[iv] http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/09/28/444188463/are-the-new-u-n-global-goals-too-ambitious

[v] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sustainable-development-goals-offer-something-for-everyone-and-will-not-work/

[vi] http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/energy-access-sdgs-un-climate-change/407734/

[vii] http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0631228802.html

[viii] http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/28/world/united-nations-main/

[ix] http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/27/us-development-goals-challenges-analysis-idUSKCN0RR0TV20150927