Sondermann Elena, Ulbert Cornelia
Institut für Entwicklung und Frieden (INEF), Universität Duisburg-Essen, Lotharstr. 53, Duisburg, 47057 Germany.
Z Friedens Konfliktforsch. 2020;9(2):309-320. doi: 10.1007/s42597-020-00049-7. Epub 2020 Nov 9.
Narratives and metaphors shape how actors perceive the world around them and how policymakers frame the range of policy choices they think of as feasible. The metaphor of war and the narrative of how to tackle the unprecedented threat of COVID-19 are effective mechanisms to convey urgency. However, they also bear serious implications: Thinking in terms of health threats works with a logic of exceptionalism, which supports images of "us" vs. an "enemy" thereby shortening complex lines of causality and responsibility and privileging national answers. It fails to provide for a normative framework for drafting long-term systemic approaches. In this contribution, we critically engage with existing narratives of global health security and show how the logic of exceptionalism is limiting the current responses to the pandemic. We conceptualize an alternative narrative that is based on the logic of solidarity and argue that within this alternative framing a more sustainable and ultimately more just way of coping with infectious diseases will be possible.
叙事和隐喻塑造了行动者对周围世界的认知方式,以及政策制定者对他们认为可行的一系列政策选择的构想方式。战争隐喻以及应对新冠疫情这一前所未有的威胁的叙事,是传达紧迫性的有效机制。然而,它们也带来了严重影响:从健康威胁的角度思考遵循一种例外主义逻辑,这种逻辑支持“我们”与“敌人”的形象,从而缩短了复杂的因果关系和责任链条,并使国家层面的应对措施具有优先地位。它未能为制定长期系统性方法提供一个规范性框架。在本论文中,我们批判性地审视了全球卫生安全的现有叙事,并展示了例外主义逻辑是如何限制当前对疫情的应对的。我们构思了一种基于团结逻辑的替代叙事,并认为在这种替代框架内,将有可能以一种更可持续且最终更公正的方式应对传染病。