Search

Progress in reducing health inequalities through public policy action is difficult in nations identified as liberal welfare states. In Canada, as elsewhere, researchers and advocates provide governing authorities with empirical findings on the sources of health inequalities and document the lived experiences of those encountering these adverse health outcomes with the hope of provoking public policy action. However, critical analysis of the societal structures and processes that make improving the sources of health inequalities difficult—the quality and distribution of living and working conditions, that is the social determinants of health—identifies limitations in these approaches. Within this latter critical tradition, we consider—using household food insecurity in Canada as an illustration—how polemics and anger mobilization, usually absent in health inequalities research and advocacy—could force Canadian governing authorities to reduce health inequalities through public policy action. We explore the potential of using high valence terms such as structural violence, social death and social murder, which make explicit the adverse outcomes of health‐threatening public policy to force government action. We conclude by outlining the potential benefits and threats posed by polemics and anger mobilization as means of promoting health equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]