COVID-19 has been called “a disaster for feminism” for numerous reasons. In this short piece, we make sense of this claim, drawing on intersectional feminism to understand why an analysis that considers gender alone is inadequate to address both the risks and consequences of COVID-19.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 7, Page 59-61, July 2012.

"Your confidentiality will be respected. Information that discloses your identity will not be released without your consent unless required by law or regulation." I sat there with Missy, reading the consent form line by line. When I got to the section on confidentiality, I told her she could pick a nickname, or fake name, that I would use in my research notes and later when the research was written up. She wanted to use "Missy." It wasn't exactly a pseudonym—this was (...) the same name that a number of her friends in the neighborhood knew her by. I'd also heard a couple of nurses calling her Missy when I had gone to visit with her in the hospital earlier that winter. I asked her if she was sure she wanted to use that .. (shrink)

It was an afternoon in the early stages of the pandemic when Lisa Richardson and I ran into each other at the hospital coffee line. Standing six feet apart and decked out in masks, scrub caps, and face shields, we were almost unrecognizable to one another and to ourselves. The pandemic was of course top of mind, but our conversation quickly turned to what was being articulated about the pandemic and why it was being heralded as a "disaster for feminism". (...) As Audre Lorde reminds us, "There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not live single issue lives," and we were beginning to see how many issues intersected in the pandemic moment. The United Nations was calling... (shrink)

Decades after Foucault’s Birth of the Clinic and History of Madness, the role of medicine in producing and sustaining classifications continues to be topical, as scholars have continued to critique normalizing judgments embedded in the practices of medicine, which stabilize identity categories within health care settings. A significant contributor to this area of scholarship, Ian Hacking has articulated a productive and extremely influential account of how certain “kinds” of people emerge hand-in-hand with the categories that are meant to classify them, (...) examining not only medical practices, but a wide range of governmental, scientific, and cultural institutions that contribute to kind-making. In this paper, I examine limitations to Hacking’s looping effects thesis, in an effort to further explore how kind-making may be embodied through intersections of subjectivity, social identity, and the practices of medicine. Employing a field study of HIV/AIDS care in Vancouver, Canada, I push at some of the boundaries of Hacking’s account, attempting to add complexity and nuance by bringing to bear considerations of memory, resistance, and embodiment on the process of looping. (shrink)

Anonymity is accepted as necessary for the generation of empirical knowledge concerning human research participants, especially for members of “vulnerable” groups. In particular, anonymity has been given a role in easing the challenges of giving voice to experiences that disrupt familiar and convenient paradigms of knowledge. This paper troubles such a notion, on the grounds that anonymity may undermine the acceptance of such experiences as evidence and reinforce the kind of epistemic politics that treats some assertions as incontrovertible, while silencing (...) others. An uncritical acceptance of anonymity generates concerns about representation, voice, and authorship in research, particularly amongst disadvantaged communities. (shrink)

“Nocebo,” a term coined in the mid-twentieth century, refers to the onset of negative side effects in individuals who anticipate harm from biomedical treatment. Sylvia Wynter invokes nocebo effects as racializing phenomena that demonstrate the injurious impact of colonial practices. By soliciting insights from Nocebo Studies, as well as Wynter and Achille Mbembe, this article explores decolonial philosophies of selfhood, especially in terms of the meaning-making expressivity of selves. This conversation between Nocebo Studies and Wynter proffers ways to engage with (...) nocebo effects as mani-festations of the structures of colonial violence, while undercutting biomedical accounts of nocebos that presuppose an overly generic human body. (shrink)