Journal of Consumer Policy

, Volume 18, Issue 2–3, pp 135–156 | Cite as

The potential for feminist political practice to empower the unrepresented consumer: The case of cervical screening services

  • Julia Edwards
  • Linda McKie
Article

Abstract

This article explores the potential of a particular model of feminist political practice for empowering women, and unrepresented voices, as consumers of health and other bureaucratically organised public services. A case study of women's views of cervical screening is employed as a vehicle for identifying the situation of the unrepresented as consumers of a public service. Drawing upon a model of feminist political practice, as a means of further analysing the position of the unrepresented, the potential for change with the adoption of this model is considered in a European context.

Zusammenfassung

Das Potential feministischer politischer Praxis zur ErmÄchtigung nicht reprÄsentierter Konsumentmen: Der Fall von Reihenuntersuchungen zur Vorbeugung von GebÄrmutter-halskrebs Der Beitrag untersucht die Möglichkeit eines bestimmten Modells feministischer politischer Praxis zur ErmÄchtigung von Frauen und anderen nicht reprÄsentierten Personen als Konsumentmen von öffentlichen Leistungen im Gesund-heitswesen und in anderen Bereichen. Eine Fallstudie von Reihenuntersuchungen zur Krebsvorsorge aus der Sicht der betroffenen Frauen dient dazu, die Situation eines unreprÄsentierten Konsumenten einer öffentlichen Leistung zu kennzeichnen. Als Modell für feministische politische Praxis werden örtliche behördliche Frauenkomitees beschrieben, und es wird am Beispiel englischer VerhÄltnisse untersucht, welches Potential solche AktivitÄten besitzen.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Austoker, J., & McPherson, A. (1992).Cervical screening. Practical guides for general practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Burchell, G., Gordon, G., & Miller, P. (Eds.) (1991).The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality. London: Harvester/Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  3. Chamberlain, J. (1984). Failure of the cervical cytology screening programme.British Medical Journal, 289, 853–854.Google Scholar
  4. Chomet, J., & Chomet, J. (1989).Cervical cancer. Wellingborough: Grapevine.Google Scholar
  5. Coole, D. (1988).Women in political theory. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books.Google Scholar
  6. Day, N. (1989). Screening for cancer of the cervix.Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 43, 103–106.Google Scholar
  7. Department of Health (1988).General practice in the NHS: A new contract. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
  8. Department of Health (1992).The health of the nation: A strategy for action. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  9. Edwards, J. (1988). Local Government Women's Committees.Local Government Studies, 14, 49–52.Google Scholar
  10. Edwards, J. (1995).Local government women's committees — A feminist political practice. Aldershot, Avebury.Google Scholar
  11. Edwards, J., & McKie, L. (1993). Equal opportunities and public policy: An agenda for change.Public Policy and Administration, 8, 54–67.Google Scholar
  12. Featherstone, M. (1982). The body in consumer culture.Theory, Culture and Society, 1, 23–32.Google Scholar
  13. Fieldhouse, P. (1986).Food and nutrition: Customs and culture. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  14. Foucault, M. (1977).Discipline and punish. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  15. Foucault, M. (1980). Two lectures. In: C. Gordon (Ed.),Power/Knowledge, pp. 78–108. Brighton: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  16. Foucault, M. (1981).The history of sexuality, Vol. 1, An Introduction. Harmondsworth: Pelican.Google Scholar
  17. Howson, A. (1993).Social constructions of the cervix: Fragmentation, surveillance and the embodiment of obligation. Paper presented to BSA Medical Sociology Group Annual Conference, Pitlochry, Scotland.Google Scholar
  18. Ibbotson, T., & Wyke, S. (forthcoming). Cervical cancer and cervical screening: A review.Journal of Advances in Health Care.Google Scholar
  19. Jordan, A., & Richardson, J. (1987).Government and pressure groups in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Laffin, M. (1986).Professionalism and policy. London: Gower/Tavistock.Google Scholar
  21. Laws, S. (1990).Issues of blood: The politics of menstruation. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Lupton, D. (1994).Medicine as culture. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. McCormick, J. (1989). Cervical smears: A questionable practice?The Lancet (July 22), 207–209.Google Scholar
  24. McKegnany, N., & Barnard, M. (1992).AIDS, drugs and sexual risk. Lives in the balance. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  25. McKie, L. (1993a). Women's views of the cervical smear test: Implications for nursing practice — women who have not had a smear test.Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, 972–979.Google Scholar
  26. McKie, L. (1993b). Women's views of the cervical smear test: Implications for nursing practice — women who have had a smear test.Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, 1228–1234.Google Scholar
  27. McKie, L. (1994).Risky behaviours and healthy lifestyles. Lancaster: Quay Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Mansbridge, J. (1983).Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago: Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Milburn, K., & MacAskill, S. (1994). Cervical screening: Continuing concerns in the 1990s.Health Education Journal, 53, 201–213.Google Scholar
  30. Moscucci, O. (1990).The science of women: Gynaecology and gender in England, 1800–1929. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Murphy, M., Campbell, M., & Goldblatt, P. (1987). Twenty years' screening for cancer of the uterine cervix in Great Britain, 1964–1984: Further evidence for its ineffectiveness.Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 42, 49–53.Google Scholar
  32. Okin, S. (1980).Women in western political thought. London: Virago.Google Scholar
  33. Oliver, M. (1983).Social work with disabled people. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  34. Outshoorn, J. (1991). Is this what we wanted? Positive action as issue perversion. In: E. Meehen & S. Sevenhuijsen (Eds.),Equality politics and gender, pp. 104–121. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Parry, G., Moyser, G., & Day, N. (1992).Political participation and democracy in Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Pateman, C. (1989).The disorder of women. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  37. Posner, T. (1993). Ethical issues and the individual woman in cancer screening programmes.Journal of Advances in Health and Nursing Care, 2, 55–69.Google Scholar
  38. Riley, K. (1990). Equality for women — The role of local authorities.Local Government Studies, 18(4), 49–67.Google Scholar
  39. Rutherford, J. (1988). Who's that man. In: R. Chapman & J. Rutherford (Eds.),Male order unwrapping masculinity, pp. 21–67. London: Lawrence & Wishart.Google Scholar
  40. Stone, I. (1988).Equal opportunities in local authorities. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  41. Stopes, M. (1918).Married love. London: G.P. Putman's and Sons.Google Scholar
  42. Weeks, J. (1991).Against nature. Essays on history, sexuality and identity. London: River Oram Press.Google Scholar
  43. Weedon, C. (1987).Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julia Edwards
    • 1
  • Linda McKie
    • 2
  1. 1.Business SchoolUniversity of GlamorganMid GlamorganUK
  2. 2.Department of General PracticeUniversity of Aberdeen, Forester Health CentreAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations