Tuesday, October 2, 2012
What does it mean to be a biological citizen?
As described by Adriana Petryna in her book Life Exposed: Biological Citizens after Chernobyl, a biological citizens is one who uses claims of a damaged biology (from the Chernobyl disaster) to become a citizen. Being a biological citizen in this book also implies the social obligations that go along with this, including using this diseased status to reap the economic benefits provided by one's country for those affected by the disaster. This brought to mind what we learned about the 'sick role' in the introduction to public health class. To be sick, and belonging to a 'sick role' one of the criteria is that one must be trying to get better. For most people, wanting to get better is the common way one reacts when they find out they are ill. However, due to this economic incentive associated with illness in Ukraine, people have lost their desire to get better, and may even go to lengths to continue to use the 'sick' label. This reminded me of a documentary about economic struggles in America that I saw in one of my classes- not exactly related to health, but rather financial welfare. One of the women featured said that she was a welfare recipient and that any job she was able to get would pay her less than what she made off of welfare, and the moment she got a job, she would be kicked off of welfare. Therefore, similar to the folks in Ukraine, in this woman's case, the financial aid policies set in place by the government do not promote human productivity. Rather, it is much easier to rely on the government. While I can't presume, I would imagine she is not the only person in this predicament, and like the people in Ukraine, there is a culture of a 'welfare-citizen' in the United States- not because people are inherently bad, but rather because the system makes it so easy to do so. As this book was written a while ago, I would be interested to see how things have changed throughout the years and what effect this has on the financial state of Ukraine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is such an interesting and controversial point that is a huge issue in the American political arena. In class last week, we talked about this idea that people in the Soviet Union could only receive healthcare if they reached a certain "threshold" of sickness. This system incentivized people to make themselves more sick in order to qualify for the treatment to get better. As we look at this issue now, it seems outdated and irrational, but as Eviana points out, we deal with the exact same issue with welfare in the United States. Many people tend to want to help out other people who do not have the same opportunities, money or jobs as they do in order to be nice and considerate. Other people use the idea that "the government is too big and too involved" to argue that people should not be making more income through welfare than they would through a job. This debate is a matter of incentives and creating an efficient system.
ReplyDeleteOne of my main takeaways from the video, the reading, and the point that Eviana brought up, is that we may want to consider reserving judgment on the Soviets until we can figure out a solution in our own political system. Among other reasons, I love history and I am a history major because I believe that it is extremely important to know about the mistakes that our civilization (whether that refers to Americans or humankind) has made so that we can make sure they do not happen again. The way that healthcare was administered after Chernobyl is a really important thing for us to study and be aware of, but perhaps the more important takeaway is for us to think about how we can apply the knowledge we gained to solve our own problems that we deal with today.