Rhetorics of Refusal: Medical Dissent and the US-Somali Diaspora
Autor Kari Campeauen Limba Engleză Hardback – 28 mai 2025
Rhetorics of Refusal focuses on a recent public health crisis—Minnesota’s 2017 measles outbreak—to recast vaccine refusals less as products of poor health literacy or disinformation but as strategic and generative acts of noncompliance. The outbreak, which primarily affected unvaccinated Somali children, occurred at the nexus of declining vaccination rates, spiking autism concerns, antivaccination predation, and a fraying public health infrastructure. However, during a year-long ethnographic study at a Somali health center, Kari Campeau found that personal stories from parents offered a much different picture of vaccine refusal than the one painted by news media. Tracking refusals across four sites, Campeau argues for the importance of approaching refusals as rhetorical and participatory strategies that hold institutions accountable, press for change, and practice care within emergent biosocial communities. Moreover, she views refusal as necessary and potentially transformative in situations where refusers have little access to power or platform. By contextualizing refusals in longer cultural and political histories, Campeau unsettles traditional narratives of medical dissent while offering new entry points into discussions on racialized biopolitics, care, disability, and public health.
Preț: 602.23 lei
Preț vechi: 782.11 lei
-23% Nou
Puncte Express: 903
Preț estimativ în valută:
115.29€ • 119.84$ • 95.59£
115.29€ • 119.84$ • 95.59£
Carte nepublicată încă
Doresc să fiu notificat când acest titlu va fi disponibil:
Se trimite...
Preluare comenzi: 021 569.72.76
Specificații
ISBN-13: 9780814215883
ISBN-10: 0814215882
Pagini: 224
Dimensiuni: 152 x 229 mm
Greutate: 0.45 kg
Editura: Ohio State University Press
Colecția Ohio State University Press
ISBN-10: 0814215882
Pagini: 224
Dimensiuni: 152 x 229 mm
Greutate: 0.45 kg
Editura: Ohio State University Press
Colecția Ohio State University Press
Recenzii
“Campeau’s theory of refusal is generative, agentic, and future-oriented, offering a tangible contribution of rhetoric into the practice of public health, medicine, and our daily, medicalized lives. Rhetorics of Refusal intervenes into current discourses that perpetuate frames of stigma and ignorance around medical refusal.” —Heidi Yoston Lawrence, author of Vaccine Rhetorics
“Rhetorics of Refusal demonstrates Campeau’s commitment to ‘citational justice’ by drawing on extensive ethnographic material, as well as scholarship in rhetoric, health humanities, and disability studies. Her methodology broadens conclusions scholars can draw about how individuals navigate health information and decision-making.” —Jordynn Jack, author of Raveling the Brain: Toward a Transdisciplinary Neurorhetoric
Notă biografică
Kari Campeau is Assistant Professor of English at the University of Colorado Denver.
Extras
This study took shape amid a measles outbreak. Throughout the outbreak, one question seemed to be everywhere: Why were Somali American parents refusing the MMR vaccine? And it was followed by another question: How can public health departments get Somali American children vaccinated, and quickly? During my time working on this study, I heard many stories about Somali American parents, their medical noncompliance, and their unscientific health beliefs. Most accounts linked low MMR vaccination rates with unscientific fears about autism and its causation. In news media, in public health reports, and in conversations with healthcare providers, social service providers, and community health workers, I encountered frequent explanations for why Somali vaccination rates were low in Minnesota and why fears about autism persisted. Healthcare and social service professionals often proffered theories about Somali American parents’ lack of education and consequential vulnerability to antivaccination appeals. I heard theories about Somali people’s stubborn distrust of medicine and science and their misplaced faith in spiritual and holistic healing. I heard theories about cultural beliefs, mostly accounts of cultural taboo and stigma that attached to disability in Somali and East African cultures. I most often heard that there is not a word for autism in the Somali language. This anecdote was shorthand to explain that Somalis therefore did not know about autism and were prone to thinking that autism was unique to the US. In short, there were many explanations circulating about why Somali parents were declining vaccines. And in tandem with these explanations, there were many preset solutions, mostly health literacy outreach, mandated vaccination, and barrier removal.
These preset solutions all represent important goals, but I also wanted to ask: Why did dominant explanations for Somali American parents’ MMR vaccine refusals focus so wholly on individual beliefs? What logics and histories inform dominant approaches to medical dissent as an irrational but remediable act of individual noncompliance? How has medical dissent been defined and explained elsewhere? And might there be significance to Somali Minnesotans’ dissent? Might there be arguments, stories, histories, and ideas that were being written off because their external packaging was that of noncompliance? Because so many of us were locked into “evidence-based everything” thinking? Was there reason to listen to and follow this dissent, instead of—or in addition to—trying to quickly and permanently reverse it? What is the significance of Somali Minnesotan parents’ expressions of dissent? These questions guided the writing of this book.
I began this book by considering the limited ways that medical dissent has been named and explained. Dissent, often approached on a gradient of noncompliance, is typically defined as a wrong but fixable stance. Sometimes there is room for understanding dissent as more than just illogical—for example, steep access barriers to medicine can erode trust, and cultural insensitivity can alienate patients. Always, though, compliance is the right answer, even if medical institutions and their leaders bear some of the responsibility for facilitating trusting, accessible spaces where compliance is logical and actionable. This medical frame for approaching dissent works within and naturalizes a culture of biomedicine that “is often frustratingly inattentive to the weight history continues to bear on peoples of African descent as they counter and navigate neoliberal policies, mushrooming state-industry partnerships, and their pharmaceutical and technological offerings.” Benjamin has referred to the biomedical framing of dissent as a persisting “inexplicable curiosity” as the work of “analytical summersaults” that biomedicine must undertake to avoid acknowledging that noncompliance is an obvious response to racism in medicine, an obvious response to a system wherein the benefits and risks are not evenly distributed. Simply, dissent is logical. In response, Charles and Benjamin and fellow scholars have theorized dissent outside of a biomedical frame and set of premises.
These preset solutions all represent important goals, but I also wanted to ask: Why did dominant explanations for Somali American parents’ MMR vaccine refusals focus so wholly on individual beliefs? What logics and histories inform dominant approaches to medical dissent as an irrational but remediable act of individual noncompliance? How has medical dissent been defined and explained elsewhere? And might there be significance to Somali Minnesotans’ dissent? Might there be arguments, stories, histories, and ideas that were being written off because their external packaging was that of noncompliance? Because so many of us were locked into “evidence-based everything” thinking? Was there reason to listen to and follow this dissent, instead of—or in addition to—trying to quickly and permanently reverse it? What is the significance of Somali Minnesotan parents’ expressions of dissent? These questions guided the writing of this book.
I began this book by considering the limited ways that medical dissent has been named and explained. Dissent, often approached on a gradient of noncompliance, is typically defined as a wrong but fixable stance. Sometimes there is room for understanding dissent as more than just illogical—for example, steep access barriers to medicine can erode trust, and cultural insensitivity can alienate patients. Always, though, compliance is the right answer, even if medical institutions and their leaders bear some of the responsibility for facilitating trusting, accessible spaces where compliance is logical and actionable. This medical frame for approaching dissent works within and naturalizes a culture of biomedicine that “is often frustratingly inattentive to the weight history continues to bear on peoples of African descent as they counter and navigate neoliberal policies, mushrooming state-industry partnerships, and their pharmaceutical and technological offerings.” Benjamin has referred to the biomedical framing of dissent as a persisting “inexplicable curiosity” as the work of “analytical summersaults” that biomedicine must undertake to avoid acknowledging that noncompliance is an obvious response to racism in medicine, an obvious response to a system wherein the benefits and risks are not evenly distributed. Simply, dissent is logical. In response, Charles and Benjamin and fellow scholars have theorized dissent outside of a biomedical frame and set of premises.
Cuprins
Contents Acknowledgments Introduction Explaining (Away) “No”: Studying Dissent in Medicine and the Humanities Rhetorical Refusal The Study, Site, and Methods About Autism Review of the Chapters Chapter 1 Welcome to Health Class: Community Sickness as Rhetorical Refusal’s Fertile Ground A New Health Literacy Course: Preparation, Delivery, Evaluation, and Tensions Five Discourses of Autism as Community Sickness Rhetorical Refusal through Wrong Discourses Community Sickness as Rhetorical Refusal’s Fertile Ground Conclusion Chapter 2 Outbreak: Vaccine Dissent as Embodied Rhetorical Refusal Historical Vaccine Frames and the Rise of the Racialized Wrong-Belief Frame Somali Stories of the Minnesota Measles Outbreak Tracing Rhetorical Refusal’s Arc through Vaccine Dissent Conclusion Chapter 3 Writing to the State: Mistakes and Silences as Rhetorical Refusal Public Assistance: Diaspora Visions and Resettled Realities The Paperwork: Outreach Materials, the Grant Application, and a Consumer-Directed Model of Care Rhetorical Refusals through Mistakes, Silences, and Departures Rhetorical Refusal in Institutional Documentation Conclusion Chapter 4 The Persuasive Microbiome: Rhetorical Refusal through Care Who Is the Microbiome For? Popular and Scientific Discourses of the Microbiome Nasra’s Story Five Topoi across Microbiome Stories Following Refusal’s Arc: The Microbiome’s Health Futures A Five-Topoi Framework for Listening to Medical Dissent as Rhetorical Refusal Conclusion Conclusion References Index
Descriere
Reassesses vaccine refusals and other instances of medical dissent not as evidence of poor health literacy but as strategic, informed rhetorical refusals that can allow marginalized populations to press for change.