The contribution of Professor Bruno Latour to the sociology of health and illness: 1947–2022

Abstract

Bruno Latour was a prolific writer and commentator. His work ranged from questioning the status of the scientific fact (Latour & Woolgar, 1979) to considering how Pasteur's work came about (Latour, 1993) to discussing the status of theory and exploring how we come to love technology (Latour, 1996), and then most recently to considering both the law and the environment as 'matters of concern ' (Latour, 2004a) and 'modes of existence ' (Latour, 2011). Although he never published in Sociology of Health and Illness (SHI) himself, his work has been influential in different strands of work across the field and I offer a brief overview of this influence here. Though I look for papers across the journal, I'll make special mention of the small number that cite his name as a keyword to illustrate the argument. SOCIOTECHNICAL NETWORKS IN ETHNOGRAPHYThe first use of Latour is in a paper by Dodier and Camus (2001) on dealing with patients in a hospital emergency service. They draw on Dingwall and Murray (1983) both to ground their approach and later to talk about the limitations of previous work. For example, they also cite Jeffery (1979) on 'good and bad' patients, but to illustrate their point that 'trivia, drunks, overdoses, tramps-but also nutcases, smelly, dirty, obese patients' are not the same (p. 416). In concluding they suggest that references to specialism vary depending on the closeness of the case to an emergency-depending very much on the relationship of a specific doctor and specific patient-and on the case's intellectual interest (p. 439). Some in emergency services respond to social demands, some do not, so the openness and specialisation of the emergency department is contested (e.g. France is good at mobilising) (Jeffery, 1979). Finally, they note that their ethnographic and comparative work help identify a 'complex web of relationships built up between the people responsible for treatment', (p. 440) which creates the accessibility of services for patients facing alcohol or drug addiction or malarial rash or an infarction. For those who have come to sociology from Foucault, this was a powerful invitation to learn more about the field through Bruno Latour's eyes, using his discussion of 'the discovery of networks' (Latour, 1987).The next use as a keyword is in a paper by Gomart (2002) on addiction-again using an ethnographic method. Gomart cited Latour to support an interest in the setting. Latour, she reminded us that: 'Speaking of her new study on sheep, [Thelma Rowell] stated one of her "biases" in the following way: "I tried to give my sheep the opportunity to behave like chimps, not that I believe that they would be like chimps, but because I am sure that if you take sheep for boring sheep by opposition to intelligent chimps they would not have E D I T O R I A L

Reframing the public/private debate on healthcare services: Tracking boundaries in the National Health Service

“…This is perhaps why it gets black‐boxed into dichotomous public/private debates so readily. I therefore decided to draw on the work of medical sociologists and others who look to understand complexity through the way care is practiced (Mol, Moser, and Pols, 2010; Will, 2023), and what people and things involved in these practices do , rather than try to fix them in what they are (Law & Lien, 2012; Law and Mol, 2002). I further join these scholars in seeing the healthcare system (and the world in general) as assemblages or networks which are made up, pieced together, by lots of people, things, and concepts—paying particular attention to how and where they relate to one another (DeLanda, 2006; Deleuze & Guattari, 1987; Latour, 2005; Will, 2023), where relations get cut (Strathern, 1996), and how affects emerge out of these relations and bind actors together in different ways (Deleuze & Guattari, 1972).…”

“…I therefore decided to draw on the work of medical sociologists and others who look to understand complexity through the way care is practiced (Mol, Moser, and Pols, 2010; Will, 2023), and what people and things involved in these practices do , rather than try to fix them in what they are (Law & Lien, 2012; Law and Mol, 2002). I further join these scholars in seeing the healthcare system (and the world in general) as assemblages or networks which are made up, pieced together, by lots of people, things, and concepts—paying particular attention to how and where they relate to one another (DeLanda, 2006; Deleuze & Guattari, 1987; Latour, 2005; Will, 2023), where relations get cut (Strathern, 1996), and how affects emerge out of these relations and bind actors together in different ways (Deleuze & Guattari, 1972). Viewing the world as an assemblage not only makes visible the ways in which care and healthcare decision‐making are collective processes, incorporating different healthcare professionals, family, and friends (Mol, 2008), but also the materials, documents, and equipment involved which are all embroiled with their own social lives (Appadurai, 1986; Will, 2023).…”

“…I further join these scholars in seeing the healthcare system (and the world in general) as assemblages or networks which are made up, pieced together, by lots of people, things, and concepts—paying particular attention to how and where they relate to one another (DeLanda, 2006; Deleuze & Guattari, 1987; Latour, 2005; Will, 2023), where relations get cut (Strathern, 1996), and how affects emerge out of these relations and bind actors together in different ways (Deleuze & Guattari, 1972). Viewing the world as an assemblage not only makes visible the ways in which care and healthcare decision‐making are collective processes, incorporating different healthcare professionals, family, and friends (Mol, 2008), but also the materials, documents, and equipment involved which are all embroiled with their own social lives (Appadurai, 1986; Will, 2023). In particular I draw on Strathern (1996) to analyse these assemblages, who suggests that networks of actors often get brought together, or cut and severed to demarcate ownership.…”

“…However, social scientists have increasingly pointed to the ways in which campaigns to ‘keep the NHS public’ reify a particular nationalistic ideal, bringing about a shared identity which can be exclusionary of those who experience discrimination or other negative experiences within healthcare (Arnold‐Forster & Gainty, 2021; Cowan, 2021; Stewart et al., 2022). Attempts to ‘save the NHS’ from what campaigners suggest is ’neoliberalism’, can therefore stifle much needed critique—such as the whole discipline of medical sociology which looks to the ways medical power operates over bodies (see, for example, overviews in Scambler, (2018), Will, (2023), and Nettleton, (2020)). This paper seeks to bring this long tradition of critical research into conversation with political debates on the NHS, to interrogate the dichotomy of public/private, which in many ways black‐boxes what the NHS is or should be through setting overarching structural imperatives.…”

“…This paper seeks to bring this long tradition of critical research into conversation with political debates on the NHS, to interrogate the dichotomy of public/private, which in many ways black‐boxes what the NHS is or should be through setting overarching structural imperatives. Rather than pick a pre‐defined side—‘public’ or ‘private’—I join social scientists in moving from defining what things are to looking at what they do , opening up infrastructures to look at everyday practices, technologies, and relations that make‐up care (Mol, Moser, and Pols, 2010; Will, 2023). Specifically, I look to what ‘public’ and ‘private’ do in terms of formulating these relations, and bringing (in)equity to everyday healthcare in the UK.…”