Kristine Krause

Transnational Therapy Networks among Ghanaians in London

This article brings together ideas from medical anthropology on so-called medical pluralism, and a transnational lens in migration studies. It examines how legal status, transnational networks and religion interrelate in health practices among Ghanaians living in London. It provides an overview of the settlement of Ghanaians in London since the 1960s, and shows how transnational linkages have increased since then. It further demonstrates the strong transnational components health practices can have, including money, medicines and prayers being sent between Ghana and abroad, and between different European countries. ‘Transnational therapy networks’ is proposed as a term to describe health-related activities which span Europe and Africa. These are interlaced situational, formal and informal contacts between people which become meaningful in the event of sickness, providing financial and practical support and help in finding the right treatment.

Thinking through political subjectivity

[Abstract In the introduction to this special volume the editors focus on the analytical value of “political subjectivities” in emergent social fields that are characterized by multiple diasporic overlaps. They emphasize the central role played by various forms of governance in producing, confirming and contesting politics of transnational incorporation and diasporic participation and consider how these political projects often target members of historically differently situated groups. In particular, they draw attention to moments of exclusion and non-incorporation. The analytical concept of political subjectivity helps to understand how people relate to governance and authorities. It denotes how a single person or a group of actors is brought into a position to stake claims, to have a voice, and to be recognizable by authorities. At the same time the term points to the political and power-ridden dimension within politics of identity and belonging, encompassing the imaginary as well as the judicial-political dimension of claims to belonging and citizenship., Abstract In the introduction to this special volume the editors focus on the analytical value of “political subjectivities” in emergent social fields that are characterized by multiple diasporic overlaps. They emphasize the central role played by various forms of governance in producing, confirming and contesting politics of transnational incorporation and diasporic participation and consider how these political projects often target members of historically differently situated groups. In particular, they draw attention to moments of exclusion and non-incorporation. The analytical concept of political subjectivity helps to understand how people relate to governance and authorities. It denotes how a single person or a group of actors is brought into a position to stake claims, to have a voice, and to be recognizable by authorities. At the same time the term points to the political and power-ridden dimension within politics of identity and belonging, encompassing the imaginary as well as the judicial-political dimension of claims to belonging and citizenship.]

Space in Pentecostal Healing Practices among Ghanaian Migrants in London

In this article I analyze different spatial practices related to Pentecostal healing, drawing on fieldwork with Pentecostal believers who have migrated from Ghana to London, UK. I explore the relationship between space and the manifestation of the Holy Spirit by looking at how points of contact with the divine are created in the personal life of people and at the sites where the casting out of demons takes place. Unlike in other spirit-centered healing traditions, the Christian Holy Spirit is not conceived of as embodied in specific places, but rather is spatially unbound. To manifest, however, the Holy Spirit requires specific spatial qualities and esthetics.

Turning Therapies: Placing Medical Diversity

In this special issue, we are interested in considering how medical and health-related practices create new spatial forms on the global and local level—and how in turn the movement of therapies and personnel becomes palpable and meaningful only through specific spatial configurations. For instance, medical practices have become globally widespread, but they do so as part of a dynamic of shifting provision and renown. Older or earlier sites of medical provision may be replaced by newer ones for a number of reasons: improved medical technology; a more favorably regarded medical regime; conversion to a religion incorporating sole rights of medical

Peak or prolonged: the paradox of health crisis as subjective chronicity

This special issue is about the multiple intersections of therapeutic knowledge, crises and processes of diversification and mainstreaming. It starts not from a set definition of, say, medical ‘crisis’ but from the realisation that knowledge practices themselves construe crises (e.g. knowledge about epidemics, genetic testing, divination practices), thereby producing new forms of differentiating bodies and relations and/or naming and ordering them. With the two other central terms of this special issue, diversification and mainstreaming, the editors of this special issue aim to refer to these processes. ‘Diversification’ is understood here not only as the multiplication of differentiation, but as the increasing complexity resulting from the intersection and interaction of multiple markers of difference. The term ‘mainstreaming’ refers to processes that are undertaken in order to accommodate difference. It is a term used in the field of gender politics to describe the movement of gender issues from a specialised niche to an integral part of all levels of politics. However, in this special issue, the term is used in its popular understanding as in the fields of music or fashion to refer to the development of common genres and styles. Mainstreaming in this understanding results from reducing differences between elements through processes of approximation, adaptation and adjustment. It is different from standardisation which is the top-down imposition of rules. Both standardisation and mainstreaming result in homogenisation. However, while standardisation is created by externally imposed regulations, mainstreaming is a dynamic process based on a wish to be part of existing or anticipated trends and tendencies. Unlike standardisation, mainstreaming is a process that develops from the bottom-up and is not per se created by an imposition of standards, although it might be related to these. In fact, mainstreaming can be seen to arise from choices made by an individual or community wishing to conform to perceived collective normativity or wishing to be part of interactional preferences for shared co-activity. Crises can be turning points leading to standardisation and mainstreaming: in standardisation, authorities impose directives and controls to curb and dissolve the crisis; in the case of mainstreaming, different interest groups and individuals try to make sense of the crisis by reconciling the different interpretations made of it. In this struggle to control or make sense of a crisis, old medical categories may clash or merge with newly created ones in a process of ongoing diversification.

Is Superdiversity a Useful Concept in European Medical Sociology

Medical sociology has a poor track record of researching diversity in theoretically innovative ways. This paper notes usage of the term superdiversity in migration and urban studies, to ask about its utility in general and more specifically for researching the social production of health and illness. Referring to a multi-country interview study about healthcare seeking strategies, the need to understand the diversification of diversity and the challenges for multi-method health research are described. Six interviews each were conducted in Germany, Spain, Sweden and the UK, to give a diversity sample of 24 adults who described their strategies and practice when seeking healthcare. In discussing how far superdiversity can help to model socio-economic and cultural changes already identified as challenging health policy and service provision, the paper draws on case study material. The complex intersecting dimensions of population diversity to which superdiversity draws attention are undoubtedly relevant for commissioning and improving healthcare and research as well as policy. Whether models that reflect the complexity indicated by qualitative research can be envisaged in a timely fashion for quantitative research and questions of policy, commissioning and research re key questions for the superdiversity’s ongoing usefulness as a concept.

Medical pluralism reloaded

This article examines if and how medical pluralism can be reconceptualised in light of the expansion of the borders of care, where people do not simply seek care nationally but transnationally. We draw on our own research on reproductive travels, medical remittances, the circulation of medicines in migrant’s personal networks and the revitalization of local healing traditions through globally active NGOs to shed light on the emergence of what we call a transnationally opportunity space. The article focuses on the analysis on new opportunities and restrictions which emerge through the existing global economic stratification, the diverging legal frameworks and regulations in different nation states and locations, and the different levels of health care governance.

Peak or prolonged: the paradox of health crisis as subjective chronicity. Introduction.

This special issue is about the multiple intersections of therapeutic knowledge, crises and processes of diversification and mainstreaming. It starts not from a set definition of, say, medical ‘crisis’ but from the realisation that knowledge practices themselves construe crises (e.g. knowledge about epidemics, genetic testing, divination practices), thereby producing new forms of differentiating bodies and relations and/or naming and ordering them. With the two other central terms of this special issue, diversification and mainstreaming, the editors of this special issue aim to refer to these processes. ‘Diversification’ is understood here not only as the multiplication of differentiation, but as the increasing complexity resulting from the intersection and interaction of multiple markers of difference. The term ‘mainstreaming’ refers to processes that are undertaken in order to accommodate difference. It is a term used in the field of gender politics to describe the movement of gender issues from a specialised niche to an integral part of all levels of politics. However, in this special issue, the term is used in its popular understanding as in the fields of music or fashion to refer to the development of common genres and styles. Mainstreaming in this understanding results from reducing differences between elements through processes of approximation, adaptation and adjustment. It is different from standardisation which is the top-down imposition of rules. Both standardisation and mainstreaming result in homogenisation. However, while standardisation is created by externally imposed regulations, mainstreaming is a dynamic process based on a wish to be part of existing or anticipated trends and tendencies. Unlike standardisation, mainstreaming is a process that develops from the bottom-up and is not per se created by an imposition of standards, although it might be related to these. In fact, mainstreaming can be seen to arise from choices made by an individual or community wishing to conform to perceived collective normativity or wishing to be part of interactional preferences for shared co-activity. Crises can be turning points leading to standardisation and mainstreaming: in standardisation, authorities impose directives and controls to curb and dissolve the crisis; in the case of mainstreaming, different interest groups and individuals try to make sense of the crisis by reconciling the different interpretations made of it. In this struggle to control or make sense of a crisis, old medical categories may clash or merge with newly created ones in a process of ongoing diversification.

Peak or prolonged: the paradox of health crisis as subjective chronicity. Introduction to special issue: Therapeutic crises, diversification and mainstreaming

This special issue is about the multiple intersections of therapeutic knowledge, crises and processes of diversification and mainstreaming. It starts not from a set definition of, say, medical ‘crisis’ but from the realisation that knowledge practices themselves construe crises (e.g. knowledge about epidemics, genetic testing, divination practices), thereby producing new forms of differentiating bodies and relations and/or naming and ordering them. With the two other central terms of this special issue, diversification and mainstreaming, the editors of this special issue aim to refer to these processes. ‘Diversification’ is understood here not only as the multiplication of differentiation, but as the increasing complexity resulting from the intersection and interaction of multiple markers of difference. The term ‘mainstreaming’ refers to processes that are undertaken in order to accommodate difference. It is a term used in the field of gender politics to describe the movement of gender issues from a specialised niche to an integral part of all levels of politics. However, in this special issue, the term is used in its popular understanding as in the fields of music or fashion to refer to the development of common genres and styles. Mainstreaming in this understanding results from reducing differences between elements through processes of approximation, adaptation and adjustment. It is different from standardisation which is the top-down imposition of rules. Both standardisation and mainstreaming result in homogenisation. However, while standardisation is created by externally imposed regulations, mainstreaming is a dynamic process based on a wish to be part of existing or anticipated trends and tendencies. Unlike standardisation, mainstreaming is a process that develops from the bottom-up and is not per se created by an imposition of standards, although it might be related to these. In fact, mainstreaming can be seen to arise from choices made by an individual or community wishing to conform to perceived collective normativity or wishing to be part of interactional preferences for shared co-activity. Crises can be turning points leading to standardisation and mainstreaming: in standardisation, authorities impose directives and controls to curb and dissolve the crisis; in the case of mainstreaming, different interest groups and individuals try to make sense of the crisis by reconciling the different interpretations made of it. In this struggle to control or make sense of a crisis, old medical categories may clash or merge with newly created ones in a process of ongoing diversification.