A socioecological discourse of care or an economistic discourse: which fits better with transition?

• Published in: Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
• Main Authors: Valerie Kay, Charles Livingstone
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier 2021
• Subjects: equity; environmental sustainability; climate change; discourse; ecofeminism; Public aspects of medicine; RA1-1270; First Nations
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.13070; https://doaj.org/article/d9772b809a304c188312ec36235ab815

Abstract Objective: To analyse a ‘socioecological’ health promotion discourse and its relationship to orthodox ‘economistic’ discourse in Australia. Method: In research on health promotion addressing equity and environmental sustainability, we identified a socioecological discourse, based on an ethic of care for people and ecosystems. Using Foucault's concept of discourse as a regime that produces and legitimises certain kinds of knowledge, and ecofeminist historical analysis, we analysed this discourse and its relationship to economism. Results: The socioecological discourse takes social and ecological wellbeing as primary values, while economism takes production and trade of goods and services, measured by money, as primary. Following British invasion, property‐owning white men in Australia had the right to control and profit from land, trade, and the work of women and subordinate peoples. A knowledge regime using money as a primary measure reflects this history. In contrast, a First Nations’ primary value expressed in the study was ‘look after the land and the children’. Conclusion and implications for public health: Public health often attempts to express value through economism, using monetary measures. However, socioecological discourse, expressed for example through direct measures of social and ecological wellbeing, appears more fit for purpose in promoting a fair and sustainable society.