2013年8月20日星期二

Culture, Health, & Social Change




We have talked a lot about culture and health. In this sense, I was rethinking some critical questions. How is culture related with health? Why is culture so important in health care and health communication? How do researchers and health care practitioners locate culture in their research and work? What do they need to do to improve health outcomes, as well as achieve individual behavior change and social change? We have discussed most of them, however, as to the social change issue, it probably is hard to develop a certain answer. The role of culture in social change is always being re-evaluated, and dynamics over time and across regions. Culture is such a shared belief system, I think, that acts as a mirror upon which we might gaze in order to better understand our history, our present, and predict the potential future. It is because the way in which we think, believe, and behave, is strongly supported by different cultural values. This is not only about understanding why individuals perform the actions in terms of the contexts in which they act, as well as exploring the links of cause and influence on social, economic and political practices, but also concerns the expectations and hopes that individuals embrace.

When it comes to the health of a population, social problems largely depend on individual solutions through application of series of knowledge to inform people. I was impressed by the diffusion-of-innovation theory mentioned in Collins & Zoch’ paper (2001). One of the properties of innovation is compatibility. It assumes that if an innovation is perceived to be more consistent with individual’s values, and needs, the individual would be more likely to adopt the innovation. To approach target audiences in different cultures, thus, the diffusion of innovation is required to consider different decision making processes. For example, in Chinese culture, and other Eastern cultures, young adults or adolescents largely reply on information and suggestions from family members or older parents, whereas in western cultures, young people are more independent. In this case, it is not only the decision makers should be viewed as a target in the health campaign, but also how strong their opinions works should be identified in different issues.

The articles of Bollen et al., (2001), and Millen et al., (2000), who are talking about SES, class and political impact of transnational corporations, lead me to think about the strong link between inequalities caused by social, economic, and political forces and health. We strive to make change on the society and policy because the inequalities exist. So who are suffering? The poor who are vulnerable in economy, the women who have less power in the society, the young children who are ignored in the communities, the minority groups who are in silence in the dominant culture. The interaction between the indicators of health and how they are processed are influenced by the health care system and context where the interactions happen. Individuals (are forced to) make “rational” choices based on the social relations of which they are a small part.

Thus, what to do with the inequalities? How to make a social change in health care? Understanding, I think, is always the first step. Understand the problems, how the issues have taken place; understand the social, economic, and political context where the problems emerge; understand who are struggling in the pain, how people perceive their experience, what do they believe. And then, enlightened by the cultural sensitivity approach and culture-centered approach (Dutta, 2007), both approaches put culture on a vital position in health applications, I think is to effectively respond to the norms of the culture, infusing the culturally sensitive voices into dominant health system, and designing appropriate interventions towards target group. Otherwise, the strategies which are blind to cultural values are just like air, no sense to people. There is never an end. The society is changing, health status is changing, as well as culture. The road we are walking on is infinite, although numerous directions are ahead. That’s why the colorful future is so fantastic.

2 条评论:

  1. Yes...indeed. We have a lot to look forward in the future and as you very rightly mentioned, understanding is key. But you know the difficult enterprise of creating a condition for people to speak freely, of trust and then for us to surrender our privileges and expertise so that we can understand...its a challenging job.

    回复删除
    回复
    1. Absolutely. I was always thinking that there are so many challenges in the process of understanding. For example, as we have discussed the term of “insider” for a lot of times, one can never be an insider since the researchers will never truly and fully understand a culture or a problem if they have never experienced it. Furthermore, we are researchers, who have certain directions and goals in the research. We can never ensure openness of subjects, and our research is always equipped with our subjectivities and privilege. We have the knowledge, resource and access to speak up, instead of the target population. Thus, our task is to make the research process transparent, adopting multiple methods to approach the audience nearer. With regard to speaking freely for people, it is really a tough work in practice. We not only need to establish the awareness and cultural competency, improving techniques and skills in order to stimulate them to share, but also to develop a conversational platform for them to speak. However, how to make them to trust us? Why do I trust a stranger, an expert? What can they do to change my life? And what is trust? Trust is a belief, meaning the audience believes researchers can understand their words, their problems, believes researchers can make a change. Trust creates and develops expectation, as well as hope for people. I think it is the most difficult aspect in the research. It is very time/energy-consuming.

      删除