Search

At the intersection of migrant rights and health justice, the migrant health justice movement launches a simultaneous critique of and resistance to both punitive immigration policies and neoliberal marketization of health care. This movement responds, on the one hand, to constructions of migrant illegality, the ubiquity of deportation, and the physical and psychological health effects of undocumented status. On the other hand, it critiques processes of medicalization and social constructions of health that obfuscate the structural inequalities that give rise to health disparities. Drawing from ethnographic fieldwork at a free clinic that provides care to uninsured and undocumented migrants, this paper examines the health justice activists' critiques of the for-profit mainstream health system and their assertion of an alternative health justice framework. Predicated on the ideal and ethics of care of a universal health care model, this health justice framework advocates for health provision 1) that is independent of market forces and profit motives, 2) that is extended to everyone regardless of demographics, including immigration status and health needs, 3) that is nonhierarchical and recognizes the importance and value of non-Western, non-biomedical health modalities, and 4) that resists individualizing narratives, recognizing the structural violence inherent in the current for-profit health system. Furthermore, this migrant health justice movement asserts the legitimate biocitizenship claims of uninsured and undocumented migrant patients for health care services, independent of (but related to) national citizenship claims. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As an abstract concept, diversity represents the liberal celebration of difference, the coming together of groups and individuals with disparate identities, perspectives, and opinions in congenial and cosmopolitan cooperation, accommodation, and tolerance. Although much of the politically correct discourse around diversity characterizes it as a positive, aspirational goal, a growing body of literature examines the ambivalent attitudes toward and experiences of diversity on the neighborhood level. We build on this literature through the analysis by examining the civic roots of this ambivalence in two urban neighborhoods. Drawing upon data from the American Mosaic Project, a mixed method research project which examines American attitudes towards diversity, we argue that many urban residents are deeply invested in the language of diversity, even as they struggle with the friction that comes with lived experience in diverse settings. Yet this commitment to diversity also highlighted other dynamics of group closure. In particular, we explore the dynamics surrounding who "belongs" in these neighborhoods. The dynamics involve race and class, but also complex cultural issues of belonging to the community and how this is signaled through civility and engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing from and contributing to academic critiques of the nonprofit industrial complex (NPIC), our paper analyzes the phenomena of institutionalization, professionalization, and foundationgovernment patronage among radical, grassroots organizations. It examines the tension between an organization's radical mission and the pressure to deliver mainstream social services as well as the competition between organizations seeking to address similar social issues. This paper draws on qualitative data from an ethnographic study of Connection Points2 (CP), a radical harm reduction organization that operated a quasi-legal mobile needle exchange that became a storefront drop-in center. Our analysis illuminates both spaces of tension and modes of resistance against the pressures of institutionalization that enabled CP to maintain its organizational and ideological integrity. Furthermore, we find the de-politicizing pressure from funders to focus on individual clients' experiences and struggles, rather than engaging in a wider politicized critique of structural inequality, directly impacts the microprocesses of organizations and their workers, causing blame for structural impossibilities to be individualized to specific "incompetent" employees, Board-level politics, or even conspiracies between employees and other nonprofit organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]