公共卫生研究中的“宗教”话语:构建作为权力行使的宗教促进者、障碍和健康主体

IF 2.5 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Tyler J. Fuller
{"title":"公共卫生研究中的“宗教”话语:构建作为权力行使的宗教促进者、障碍和健康主体","authors":"Tyler J. Fuller","doi":"10.1016/j.ssmqr.2025.100618","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Public health scholars increasingly reference “religion” as a social determinant of health, often framing it as a facilitator or barrier to population health or health promotion. Yet the category remains undertheorized in public health research. Drawing on interpretive approaches and critical religious studies, I interrogate how public health scholars conceptualize and operationalize “religion” in peer-reviewed literature. Using ethnographic content analysis, I analyzed 271 research articles published between 2010 and 2022 in ten high-impact generalist public health journals. Rather than offering a systematic review of what has been published about religion, this analysis asks how “religion” is constructed and made legible within public health discourse. I examine the normative assumptions and power structures embedded in scholarly representations of religion. I identify five dominant discursive patterns: (1) religious beliefs as barriers to public health; (2) religious institutions as partners in health promotion; (3) religious practices as sources of social capital; (4) religion as a barrier to LGBTQ + health; and (5) Asian religions as barriers to health. I argue that public health discourse often constructs “religion” through Protestant-inflected assumptions, privileging certain traditions and marginalizing others. These discourses reinforce binaries of “good religion” and “bad belief,” contributing to epistemic injustice and shaping health subjectivities in ways that can undermine equity. This matters for public health because marginalization and inequity are themselves barriers to health and well-being. This article calls for greater reflexivity and attention to positionality in public health research on religion and offers tools for critically engaging the discursive power of our own scholarship.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74862,"journal":{"name":"SSM. Qualitative research in health","volume":"8 ","pages":"Article 100618"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discourses of “religion” in public health research: Constructing religious facilitators, barriers, and subjects of health as exercises of power\",\"authors\":\"Tyler J. Fuller\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ssmqr.2025.100618\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Public health scholars increasingly reference “religion” as a social determinant of health, often framing it as a facilitator or barrier to population health or health promotion. Yet the category remains undertheorized in public health research. Drawing on interpretive approaches and critical religious studies, I interrogate how public health scholars conceptualize and operationalize “religion” in peer-reviewed literature. Using ethnographic content analysis, I analyzed 271 research articles published between 2010 and 2022 in ten high-impact generalist public health journals. Rather than offering a systematic review of what has been published about religion, this analysis asks how “religion” is constructed and made legible within public health discourse. I examine the normative assumptions and power structures embedded in scholarly representations of religion. I identify five dominant discursive patterns: (1) religious beliefs as barriers to public health; (2) religious institutions as partners in health promotion; (3) religious practices as sources of social capital; (4) religion as a barrier to LGBTQ + health; and (5) Asian religions as barriers to health. I argue that public health discourse often constructs “religion” through Protestant-inflected assumptions, privileging certain traditions and marginalizing others. These discourses reinforce binaries of “good religion” and “bad belief,” contributing to epistemic injustice and shaping health subjectivities in ways that can undermine equity. This matters for public health because marginalization and inequity are themselves barriers to health and well-being. This article calls for greater reflexivity and attention to positionality in public health research on religion and offers tools for critically engaging the discursive power of our own scholarship.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74862,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SSM. Qualitative research in health\",\"volume\":\"8 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100618\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SSM. Qualitative research in health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667321525000964\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SSM. Qualitative research in health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667321525000964","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

公共卫生学者越来越多地将“宗教”作为健康的社会决定因素,往往将其定义为人口健康或健康促进的促进者或障碍。然而,在公共卫生研究中,这一类别的理论化程度仍然很低。借鉴解释方法和批判性宗教研究,我询问公共卫生学者如何在同行评审的文献中概念化和操作化“宗教”。使用人种学内容分析,我分析了2010年至2022年间在10个高影响力的综合公共卫生期刊上发表的271篇研究文章。这篇分析并没有对已发表的有关宗教的文章进行系统回顾,而是询问“宗教”是如何构建的,并在公共卫生论述中变得清晰。我研究了宗教学术表现中的规范性假设和权力结构。我确定了五种主要的话语模式:(1)宗教信仰是公共卫生的障碍;(2)宗教机构作为促进健康的伙伴;(3)宗教活动作为社会资本的来源;(4)宗教是LGBTQ +健康的障碍;(5)亚洲宗教是健康的障碍。我认为,公共卫生话语往往通过受新教影响的假设来构建“宗教”,使某些传统享有特权,而使其他传统边缘化。这些话语强化了“好宗教”和“坏信仰”的二元对立,助长了认识上的不公正,并以可能破坏公平的方式塑造了健康主体性。这对公共卫生很重要,因为边缘化和不平等本身就是健康和福祉的障碍。这篇文章呼吁在宗教公共卫生研究中进行更多的反思和关注,并为批判性地参与我们自己的学术的话语力量提供了工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Discourses of “religion” in public health research: Constructing religious facilitators, barriers, and subjects of health as exercises of power
Public health scholars increasingly reference “religion” as a social determinant of health, often framing it as a facilitator or barrier to population health or health promotion. Yet the category remains undertheorized in public health research. Drawing on interpretive approaches and critical religious studies, I interrogate how public health scholars conceptualize and operationalize “religion” in peer-reviewed literature. Using ethnographic content analysis, I analyzed 271 research articles published between 2010 and 2022 in ten high-impact generalist public health journals. Rather than offering a systematic review of what has been published about religion, this analysis asks how “religion” is constructed and made legible within public health discourse. I examine the normative assumptions and power structures embedded in scholarly representations of religion. I identify five dominant discursive patterns: (1) religious beliefs as barriers to public health; (2) religious institutions as partners in health promotion; (3) religious practices as sources of social capital; (4) religion as a barrier to LGBTQ + health; and (5) Asian religions as barriers to health. I argue that public health discourse often constructs “religion” through Protestant-inflected assumptions, privileging certain traditions and marginalizing others. These discourses reinforce binaries of “good religion” and “bad belief,” contributing to epistemic injustice and shaping health subjectivities in ways that can undermine equity. This matters for public health because marginalization and inequity are themselves barriers to health and well-being. This article calls for greater reflexivity and attention to positionality in public health research on religion and offers tools for critically engaging the discursive power of our own scholarship.
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
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
163 days
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信