Vaccine effectiveness from an anthropological perspective: immunization as a marker of identity in the Republic of Serbia
Keywords:
vaccine, Covid 19, artifact, effectiveness, opponents, advocates, epistemic responsibilityAbstract
Medical achievements are not the only or even the most important factor in solving global health problems. In the course of last year, the reception of the vaccine shows that culturally determined human behavior and choices are the main factors for the non-consensus definition of the primary problem and therefore major reason for its perpetuation and ineffective solution. The aim of the work is to observe how the anti-covid vaccine constructed cultural identity within the social network Facebook.
References
Appadurai, Arjun, ed. 1986. The Social Life of Things, Commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Attwell Katie, Samantha Meyer and Paul Ward.2018.” The Social Basis of Vaccine Questioning and Refusal: A Qualitative Study Employing Bourdieu’s Concepts of ‘Capitals’ and ‘Habitus’.” Int J Environ Res Public Health.15(5):1044. doi:10.3390/
ijerph15051044
Banić Grubišić, Ana. 2021. „Savremene legende, glasine i teorije zavere o pandemiji kovid-19 u Srbiji: folkloristička perspektiva.” U Čovek i društvo u vreme krize, Kovid– 19 u Srbiji ‘20, uredio Bojan Žikić, 141–157. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet.
Bošković, Aleksandar. 2021. „Magijsko razmišaljanje.” U Čovek i društvo u vreme krize, Kovid– 19 u Srbiji ‘20, uredio Bojan Žikić, 37–53. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet.
Brujić Marija. 2020. „‚Batina bez šargarepe’: antropološka analiza dnevne štampe o obaveznoj MMR vakcinaciji u Srbiji”. Etnoantropološki Problemi 15 (4):979–1006. https://doi.org/10.21301/eap.v15i4.
Brunson, Emily and Monica Schoch-Spana. 2021. What Makes Vaccines Social? Sapiens. An editorially independent magazine of the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Published in partnership with the University of Chicago Press.
Burdije, Pjer. 1999. Nacrt za jednu teoriju prakse: tri studije o kabilskoj etnologiji. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva.
Caroni, Letizia Luigina Mortari 2015. ”The agency of things: how spaces and artefacts organize the moral order of an intensive care unit.” Social Semiotics. 25(4): 401– 422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2015.1059576
Corlett, Angelo 2008. „Epistemic Responsibility”. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 16(2): 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/09672550802008625
Ćuković, Jelena. 2021. „Živo nasleđe u uslovima globalne pandemije: modifikacija elemenata NKN u Republici Srbiji.” U Čovek i društvo u vreme krize, Kovid– 19 u Srbiji ‘20, uredio Bojan Žikić, 173–189. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet.
Cusimano, Corey.2012. „Defending Epistemic Responsibility.” Arché Undergraduate Journal of Philosophy. 5(1): 32–59.
Filipović, Mileva. 2006. „Burdjeova sociologija nauke” u Nasleđe Pjera Burdijea, pouke i nadahnuća, uredili Miloš Nemanjić i Ivana Spasić. 25–39. Beograd: Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju Zavod za prouèavanje kulturnog razvitka.
Gell, Alfred. 1998. Art and agency. An anthropological theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haravej, Dona. 2002. „Manifest za kiborge” u Uvod u feminističku teoriju slike, uredila Branislava Anđelković, 309–347. Beograd: Centar za savremenu umetnost.
Kovačević, Ivan. 2021. „Bazično mapiranje krivaca i žrtava pandemije u javnom diskursu” U Čovek i društvo u vreme krize, Kovid– 19 u Srbiji ‘20, uredio Bojan Žikić, 219–233. Beograd: Filozofski fakultet.
Кopitof, Igor. 2005. Kulturna biografija stvari: komoditizacija kao proces. Treći program 1(2):125–126.
Küchler, Susanne and Timothy Carroll. 2021. A Return to the Object Alfred Gell, Art, and Social Theory. New York: Routledge.
Latour, Bruno. 1996. „On Actor-Network Theory: A Few Clarifications.” Soziale Welt 47, 4: 369–81. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40878163.
Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theor. New York: Oxford University Press.
Levy, Neil and Julian Savulescu. 2020. „Epistemic responsibility in the face of a pandemic.” Journal of Law and the Biosciences. 7(3): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsaa033
Miller, Daniel. 1994. „Artefacts and the Meaning of Things.” In Companion encyclopedia of anthropology edited by Tom Ingold, 396–420. New York: Routledge.
Mitcham, Carl. 2013. „Agency in Humans and in Artifacts, A Contested Discourse.” In The Moral Status of Technical Artefacts, Philosophy of Engineering and Technology edited by Peter Kroes and Peter-Paul Verbeek, 11–29. Dordrecht: Springer .
https://doi.org/10.1007/978–94–007–7914–3_2
Pišev Marko, Žikić Bojan, i Stajić Mladen. 2020. „Indeks ‚korona’: simbolička upotreba kovida-19 u javnom govoru Srbije”. Etnoantropološki Problemi 15 (3):845–877. https://doi.org/10.21301/eap.v15i3.9.
Propp, Vladimir. 1968. Morphology of folk tale. The American Folklore Society and Indiana University.
Prop, Vladimir. 2012. Morfologija bajke. Beograd: Biblioteka XX vek.
Spasić, Ivana. 2006. „Distinkcija na domaći način: diskursi statusnog diferenciranja u današnjoj Srbiji” u Nasleđe Pjera Burdijea, pouke i nadahnuća, uredili Miloš Nemanjić i Ivana Spasić. 137–173. Beograd: Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju
Zavod za prouèavanje kulturnog razvitka.
Zarić, Miloš. „Od Kopitofa na dar: „Drugačiji pogled” na kulutrnu biografiju stvari”, Glasnik Etnografskog muzeja. 80 (80): 111–134
