In this book scholars from across the globe investigate changes in ‘society’ and ‘nation’ over time through the lens of immunisation. Such an analysis unmasks the idea of vaccination as a simple health technology and makes visible the social and political complexities in which vaccination programmes are embedded. The collection of essays gives a comparative overview of immunisation at different times in widely different parts of the world and under different types of political regime. Core themes in the chapters include immunisation as an element of state formation; citizens’ articulation of seeing (or not seeing) their needs incorporated into public health practice; allegations that development aid is inappropriately steering third-world health policies; and an ideological shift that treats vaccines as marketable and profitable commodities rather than as essential tools of public health. Throughout, the authors explore relationships among vaccination, vaccine-making, and the discourses and debates on citizenship and nationhood that have accompanied mass vaccination campaigns. The thoughtful investigations of vaccination in relation to state power, concepts of national identify (and sense of solidarity) and individual citizens’ sense of obligation to self and others are completed by an afterword by eminent historian of vaccination William Muraskin. Reflecting on the well-funded global initiatives which do not correspond to the needs of poor countries, Muraskin asserts that an elite fraternity of self-selected global health leaders has undermined the United Nations system of collective health policy determination by launching global disease eradication and immunisation programmes over the last twenty years.
devoid of balance, ravaged instead by the failed ideologies of nationalism, imperialism, communism, capitalism, fascism and liberalism. Following previous historical periods that Hobsbawm had referred to in turn as the age of revolution (1789–1848), the age of capital (1848–75) and the age of empire (1875–1914), the short twentieth century was extreme in two ways.
On the one hand, it was marked by oscillating moods and events ranging from early twentieth-century catastrophe, through a golden age in the decades after
, neoliberal critiques first emerged in the 1930s and 1940s. 15 At this time, a small number of economists and political philosophers reacted against what they saw as a crisis of liberalism, in which liberal governments created mechanisms for securing individual freedom (from disease or old age) by collectivising social risks. 16 Faced with post-war planning and destructive totalitarian regimes, neoliberal theorists sought to rethink liberalism, and recast state interventions in social and economic realms as a risk to the individualised self-determination supposedly at the
, though, liberal values which stressed self-reliance rather than state intervention continued to influence policy throughout the post-war period.
The apparent shift from post-war settlement to neo-liberalism under Thatcher is an attractive but, as Peter Kerr has put it, ‘ultimately misleading’ picture of twentieth-century British social and economic policy.
As this chapter has shown, even in the immediate post-war period British governments were reluctant to extend
– a much cited exemplar.
However, the phrase ‘self-made man’, which the Fowlers appropriated for their motto, is generally attributed to US senator, Henry Clay, who, in 1832, used it explicitly in the context of entrepreneurial capitalism.
By the 1830s, the pressures of new urban populations, market capitalism, and abolitionist rhetoric saw the liberalism of the Enlightenment give way to an emphasis on differences and hierarchies within the social body. ‘[N
inheritances, and cannot be reduced to simple explanations.
5 T. Scott and A. Maynard, ‘Will the new GP contract lead to cost effective medical practice?’, Discussion Paper 82, University of York, 1991, pp. ii, 14–35.
6 The history and definition of neoliberalism is taken up in Chapters 4 and 6 . Briefly, neoliberal economic analysis and political philosophy emerged during the 1930s and 1940s in opposition to interventionist liberalism (and totalitarian government). The idea that markets were the most efficient allocator
benevolently guided to healthy decisions.
The international adoption of risk-factor approaches to prevention, in socialist as well as capitalist democratic states, was the product of number of political projects. 119 In Britain, the focus on individuals and education dovetailed neatly with the country's recent political history, and with the liberalism which infused the Labour Party's social democratic approach to economic and social management. 120
Yet, as the NHS itself symbolised, state agencies and medical professionals
the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self (London: Routledge, 1990); N. Rose, Inventing Our Selves: Psychology, Power, and Personhood (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); P. Miller and N. Rose, ‘On therapeutic authority: Psychoanalytical expertise under advanced liberalism’, History of the Human Sciences , 7:3 (1994), 29–64.
E. Illouz, Saving the Modern Soul: Therapy, Emotions, and the Culture of Self
Paul Greenough, Stuart Blume and Christine Holmberg
decolonisation, the Cold War, the rise of economic neo-liberalism and recent
geo-political shifts. This collection gives a comparative overview of
immunisation at different times in widely different parts of the world and
under different types of political regime.
Five of the chapters are set in the last fifty years. 3 Four others pay particular
attention to the development and manufacture of vaccines, because the capacity
without entirely displacing the late Victorian ‘high point of civic
Liberalism’, recognise the scope and penetration of economic notions of
civic duty prevalent in the voluntary hospitals and more widely in the interwar
years. 76 While this does imply
interwar ideas of civic duty were more expansive than simply voting, the
patient contract remained essentially passive. 77 Patients making a financial contribution, even