政府心态与社区:新冠疫情封锁的影响。

Claire Wallace, Lucia Mytna-Kurekova, Margarita Leon, Jacqueline O'Reilly, Constantin Blome, Margarita Bussi, Becky Faith, Mark Finney, Janine Leschke, Chiara Ruffa, Emma Russell, Mi AhSchøyen, Matthias Thurer, Marge Unt, Rachel Verdin
{"title":"政府心态与社区:新冠疫情封锁的影响。","authors":"Claire Wallace,&nbsp;Lucia Mytna-Kurekova,&nbsp;Margarita Leon,&nbsp;Jacqueline O'Reilly,&nbsp;Constantin Blome,&nbsp;Margarita Bussi,&nbsp;Becky Faith,&nbsp;Mark Finney,&nbsp;Janine Leschke,&nbsp;Chiara Ruffa,&nbsp;Emma Russell,&nbsp;Mi AhSchøyen,&nbsp;Matthias Thurer,&nbsp;Marge Unt,&nbsp;Rachel Verdin","doi":"10.1007/s42413-023-00189-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The COVID lockdowns were characterised by new forms of governmentality as lives were disrupted and controlled through the vertical transmission of biopolitics by the state. The paper considers how this was experienced by academics in 11 different countries through analysis of diaries written during the first lockdown. The paper asks if communities can offer an alternative to governmentality by looking at three levels: the national, the neighbourhood and the personal. Whilst at a national level the idea of community was instrumentalised to encourage compliance to extraordinary measures, at the local level community compassion through helping neighbours encouraged horizontal connections that could offer a \"space\" within the dominant logic of governmentality. At the level of personal communities, the digitalisation of social relationships helped to create supportive networks over widely dispersed areas but these were narrowly rather than widely focused, avoiding critical discussion.</p>","PeriodicalId":73439,"journal":{"name":"International journal of community well-being","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10169107/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Governmentality Versus Community: The Impact of the COVID Lockdowns.\",\"authors\":\"Claire Wallace,&nbsp;Lucia Mytna-Kurekova,&nbsp;Margarita Leon,&nbsp;Jacqueline O'Reilly,&nbsp;Constantin Blome,&nbsp;Margarita Bussi,&nbsp;Becky Faith,&nbsp;Mark Finney,&nbsp;Janine Leschke,&nbsp;Chiara Ruffa,&nbsp;Emma Russell,&nbsp;Mi AhSchøyen,&nbsp;Matthias Thurer,&nbsp;Marge Unt,&nbsp;Rachel Verdin\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s42413-023-00189-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The COVID lockdowns were characterised by new forms of governmentality as lives were disrupted and controlled through the vertical transmission of biopolitics by the state. The paper considers how this was experienced by academics in 11 different countries through analysis of diaries written during the first lockdown. The paper asks if communities can offer an alternative to governmentality by looking at three levels: the national, the neighbourhood and the personal. Whilst at a national level the idea of community was instrumentalised to encourage compliance to extraordinary measures, at the local level community compassion through helping neighbours encouraged horizontal connections that could offer a \\\"space\\\" within the dominant logic of governmentality. At the level of personal communities, the digitalisation of social relationships helped to create supportive networks over widely dispersed areas but these were narrowly rather than widely focused, avoiding critical discussion.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73439,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of community well-being\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10169107/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of community well-being\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-023-00189-7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of community well-being","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-023-00189-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

新冠疫情封锁的特点是新形式的治理,因为国家通过生物政治的垂直传播扰乱和控制了生活。该论文通过分析第一次封锁期间写的日记,考虑了11个不同国家的学者是如何经历这种情况的。该论文询问,社区是否可以从三个层面提供一种替代治理的方法:国家、社区和个人。虽然在国家一级,社区的理念被用来鼓励遵守特别措施,但在地方一级,通过帮助邻居,社区的同情心鼓励了横向联系,这可以在政府思维的主导逻辑中提供一个“空间”。在个人社区层面,社会关系的数字化有助于在广泛分散的领域建立支持性网络,但这些网络的重点是狭隘的,而不是广泛的,避免了批判性的讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Governmentality Versus Community: The Impact of the COVID Lockdowns.

The COVID lockdowns were characterised by new forms of governmentality as lives were disrupted and controlled through the vertical transmission of biopolitics by the state. The paper considers how this was experienced by academics in 11 different countries through analysis of diaries written during the first lockdown. The paper asks if communities can offer an alternative to governmentality by looking at three levels: the national, the neighbourhood and the personal. Whilst at a national level the idea of community was instrumentalised to encourage compliance to extraordinary measures, at the local level community compassion through helping neighbours encouraged horizontal connections that could offer a "space" within the dominant logic of governmentality. At the level of personal communities, the digitalisation of social relationships helped to create supportive networks over widely dispersed areas but these were narrowly rather than widely focused, avoiding critical discussion.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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