Roma Health Mediators: A Neocolonial Tool for the Reinforcement of Epistemic Violence?

Ioanna Petraki
{"title":"Roma Health Mediators: A Neocolonial Tool for the Reinforcement of Epistemic Violence?","authors":"Ioanna Petraki","doi":"10.29098/crs.v3i1.60","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scientific articles in medical journals regarding Roma have produced a type of problematic consensus narrative that is reinforced through its formulaic repetition. Roma health mediator (RHM) programs seem to have evolved from and currently be part of this consensus narrative. In this article I examine the potential use of RHMs, even if unintended, as a neocolonial tool for the reinforcement of epistemic violence against Roma, using a critical analysis of four empirical stories from the field. I explore the above hypothesis through critical reflexive anthropology, and postcolonial and intersectional studies, as well as by using elements of the self-ethnographic approach. I argue that the epistemic violence can be seen as resulting from the interplay between the Subject (i.e., health professional or researcher), the Object (i.e., Roma as “Other”), and the practices that result (i.e., discourse or consensus narrative production through the interpretation of the scientific data). I conclude with tools that could help reduce the epistemic violence against Roma within the health sector, suchas cross-disciplinary collaboration, participatory action research (PAR), (self-)reflection, critical theory, and the dialogic creation of scientific knowledge.","PeriodicalId":32956,"journal":{"name":"Critical Romani Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Romani Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29098/crs.v3i1.60","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Scientific articles in medical journals regarding Roma have produced a type of problematic consensus narrative that is reinforced through its formulaic repetition. Roma health mediator (RHM) programs seem to have evolved from and currently be part of this consensus narrative. In this article I examine the potential use of RHMs, even if unintended, as a neocolonial tool for the reinforcement of epistemic violence against Roma, using a critical analysis of four empirical stories from the field. I explore the above hypothesis through critical reflexive anthropology, and postcolonial and intersectional studies, as well as by using elements of the self-ethnographic approach. I argue that the epistemic violence can be seen as resulting from the interplay between the Subject (i.e., health professional or researcher), the Object (i.e., Roma as “Other”), and the practices that result (i.e., discourse or consensus narrative production through the interpretation of the scientific data). I conclude with tools that could help reduce the epistemic violence against Roma within the health sector, suchas cross-disciplinary collaboration, participatory action research (PAR), (self-)reflection, critical theory, and the dialogic creation of scientific knowledge.
罗姆人健康调解员:强化认知暴力的新殖民主义工具?
医学期刊上关于罗姆人的科学文章产生了一种有问题的共识叙事,这种叙事通过公式化的重复得到了强化。罗姆人健康调解员(RHM)项目似乎是从这种共识叙事演变而来的,目前也是这种共识叙事的一部分。在这篇文章中,我通过对该领域四个经验故事的批判性分析,研究了RHM作为一种新殖民主义工具的潜在用途,即使是无意的,也可以加强对罗姆人的认识暴力。我通过批判性反身人类学、后殖民和交叉研究,以及使用自我民族志方法的元素来探索上述假设。我认为,认知暴力可以被视为是主体(即卫生专业人员或研究人员)、客体(即罗姆人作为“其他人”)和由此产生的实践(即通过解释科学数据产生的话语或共识叙事)之间相互作用的结果。最后,我提出了有助于减少卫生部门内针对罗姆人的认识暴力的工具,如跨学科合作、参与性行动研究(标准杆数)、(自我)反思、批判理论和科学知识的对话创造。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信