Kaiser-Grolimund Andrea, Bukachi Salome A, Karuga Julia, Kämpfen Laura, Keck Frédéric, Zinsstag Jakob, Brown Hannah
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.
Department of Public Health, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Crit Public Health. 2025 May 7;35(1):2497358. doi: 10.1080/09581596.2025.2497358. eCollection 2025.
One Health has gained global prominence in recent years. Alongside its emergence, there have been extensive social science critiques. In this contribution, we make the case for the value of recent theoretical discussions in the field of anthropology - sometimes referred to as an 'ontological turn'. We argue that taking theory seriously benefits One Health as an integrated approach that has interdisciplinary collaborations at its heart, but which encounters challenges when conversations based on different epistemological and ontological positions result in voices talking past each other. In this contribution, we offer two examples of what One Health specialists can gain from anthropologically-informed ontological thinking. Both require questioning ontological premises. Firstly, questioning assumptions about distinctions between animals and humans. Secondly, questioning the universality of biomedical knowledge. In the conclusion, we underline the importance of an ontological openness when it comes to the constitution and position of the actors as well as different bodies of knowledge that are involved in One Health and we show that talking to each other with awareness of different ontological positions is not impossible.
近年来，“同一健康”理念在全球范围内备受瞩目。随着其兴起，也出现了广泛的社会科学批评。在本文中，我们论证了人类学领域近期理论讨论的价值——有时被称为“本体论转向”。我们认为，认真对待理论对“同一健康”这一以跨学科合作为核心的综合方法有益，但当基于不同认识论和本体论立场的对话导致各说各话时，该方法会遇到挑战。在本文中，我们提供了两个例子，说明“同一健康”专家可以从基于人类学的本体论思维中获得什么。两者都需要质疑本体论前提。第一，质疑关于动物与人类区别的假设。第二，质疑生物医学知识的普遍性。在结论中，我们强调了在涉及“同一健康”的行为者的构成和立场以及不同知识体系时保持本体论开放性的重要性，并且我们表明，在意识到不同本体论立场的情况下相互交流并非不可能。
