Search

While the focus on emotions has been associated with the rise of psychosocial welfare and has promised a gateway to accommodate individually diversified needs of citizens in policies, the article shows that the role of emotions needs to be better understood. Highlighting emotions can serve both to empower and to patronize those who experience them. Referring to emotions can thus strengthen hierarchies and downplay individual requests to initiate a change. The analysis of professional discourses on birth care in Czechia shows the value of contextualising emotions. While midwifery discourses apply the emotional context of birth to support women in their specific birth choices, medical discourses use the emotional context to patronize them and to limit their requirements. As a result, policy demands are seen as illegitimate when coming from midwives, who want to see women's choices more respected in care. We analyse this dynamic through intimacy. As a conceptual framework used in sociology of care, 'intimacy' ties individual emotional experiences to collective discourses on care, the body and related feelings. Viewing professional discourses on birth care through intimacy reveals the role of emotions in the collective recognition of the personal struggle for the right to give birth in conditions that respect bodily and emotional integrity, which informs how we think of the role of emotions in policies in general. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article suggests that we can develop a better understanding of the dynamic of governing in social policies through the lens of ‘intimacy’. Intimacy – a deep personal knowledge about body and mind which changes during the dying process – encompasses validation of one’s emotional experience. In that way, intimacy links the emotional content of dying to discursive dimensions of dignity usually associated with end-of-life care. The analysis describes how the Czech organization Homecoming has constructed its concept of end-of-life care on intimacy, and in so doing, steers specific meanings in the policy field. Hence, intimacy suggests paying more attention to modes of ‘sharing a meaning’, through which policies come to be. The article mediates between psychosocial theorizing of emotions, poststructuralist policy analysis, and current debates on governing in health care and social policies in order to uncover the role of intimacy in the dynamics of governing. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]