Critically the emerging preventive and pre-emptive strategies that are being put in place in the global South to assure against the apparent threat posed by western cultural practices.5. An outline of the special issue The six papers of this special issue help shed light, in varying ways, on our respective concerns with problematisation, care and culture within the politics of NCDs in the global South. Reubi’s (this issue) paper explores how epidemiological models used to problematise smoking in developing countries are building on notions of time and space associated with postwar theories about modernisation and progress. In this reading ?favoured by tobacco control activists ?development and, by extension, the kinds of “globalised” culture that are presumed to be the hallmark of economic growth become proxies for epidemiological risk. Here, development and culture are constructed as specific and serious threats to public health, with political intervention the favoured solution. Vesatolimod cost Criticism of the simplistic readings of culture that can dominate the politics of NCDs is also a feature of Smit et al.’s (this issue) paper in which they explore the recursive relationships between the built environment and the experience of chronic disease in the context of Khayelitsha, one of Cape Town’s poorestD. Reubi et al. / Health Place 39 (2016) 179?neighbourhoods. Their paper highlights two glaring absences in the problem frames of the global NCD agenda ?mental health and the entanglements of urban environments with upstream determinants of health. The gross inequalities in everyday life within cities not only condition the likelihood of suffering from chronic disease, but also the shape and nature of that suffering. Cultural coping mechanisms, in turn, can be severely compromised by the nature of places and their use. Smit et al. draw attention to the problems of food purchasing and storage, of being physically active and of the depression and stress that emerge from living with the perpetual (fear of) crime and violence. Coping, Smit et al. argue, will only be enhanced through attention to the drivers of risky environments, issues that remain silent in a politics of NCDs that would prefer to blame the failings of culture than acknowledge the complicity of the state in producing risk. This critique is also a feature of order FPS-ZM1 Glasgow and Schrecker’s (this issue) paper in which they argue that the political imaginaries of global health, shaped as they are by inherently neoliberal ideologies, purposefully divert attention from both the social and political economic determinants of NCDs. Instead, they place responsibility for NCDs and their prevention in the hands of individuals, rendering care a matter of successful cultural behavioural interventions. The concern with individual choice, responsibility and empowerment also represents the hope that new, self-governing subjects can be formed that, in turn, can exercise a culture of selfcare. Such a culture is essential for the success of most contemporary NCD prevention and treatment strategies, yet so much critical social scientific analysis demonstrates just how problematic these political aspirations are. For example, MacDonald’s (this issue), Bunkenborg’s (this issue) and Whyte’s (this issue) papers all engage with the politics of NCDs through the experiences of largely `improvised’ (Livingston, 2012) treatment options for breast cancer and diabetes available in India, China and Uganda respectively. Thes.Critically the emerging preventive and pre-emptive strategies that are being put in place in the global South to assure against the apparent threat posed by western cultural practices.5. An outline of the special issue The six papers of this special issue help shed light, in varying ways, on our respective concerns with problematisation, care and culture within the politics of NCDs in the global South. Reubi’s (this issue) paper explores how epidemiological models used to problematise smoking in developing countries are building on notions of time and space associated with postwar theories about modernisation and progress. In this reading ?favoured by tobacco control activists ?development and, by extension, the kinds of “globalised” culture that are presumed to be the hallmark of economic growth become proxies for epidemiological risk. Here, development and culture are constructed as specific and serious threats to public health, with political intervention the favoured solution. Criticism of the simplistic readings of culture that can dominate the politics of NCDs is also a feature of Smit et al.’s (this issue) paper in which they explore the recursive relationships between the built environment and the experience of chronic disease in the context of Khayelitsha, one of Cape Town’s poorestD. Reubi et al. / Health Place 39 (2016) 179?neighbourhoods. Their paper highlights two glaring absences in the problem frames of the global NCD agenda ?mental health and the entanglements of urban environments with upstream determinants of health. The gross inequalities in everyday life within cities not only condition the likelihood of suffering from chronic disease, but also the shape and nature of that suffering. Cultural coping mechanisms, in turn, can be severely compromised by the nature of places and their use. Smit et al. draw attention to the problems of food purchasing and storage, of being physically active and of the depression and stress that emerge from living with the perpetual (fear of) crime and violence. Coping, Smit et al. argue, will only be enhanced through attention to the drivers of risky environments, issues that remain silent in a politics of NCDs that would prefer to blame the failings of culture than acknowledge the complicity of the state in producing risk. This critique is also a feature of Glasgow and Schrecker’s (this issue) paper in which they argue that the political imaginaries of global health, shaped as they are by inherently neoliberal ideologies, purposefully divert attention from both the social and political economic determinants of NCDs. Instead, they place responsibility for NCDs and their prevention in the hands of individuals, rendering care a matter of successful cultural behavioural interventions. The concern with individual choice, responsibility and empowerment also represents the hope that new, self-governing subjects can be formed that, in turn, can exercise a culture of selfcare. Such a culture is essential for the success of most contemporary NCD prevention and treatment strategies, yet so much critical social scientific analysis demonstrates just how problematic these political aspirations are. For example, MacDonald’s (this issue), Bunkenborg’s (this issue) and Whyte’s (this issue) papers all engage with the politics of NCDs through the experiences of largely `improvised’ (Livingston, 2012) treatment options for breast cancer and diabetes available in India, China and Uganda respectively. Thes.
Posted inUncategorized