{"id":252,"date":"2021-02-05T12:37:10","date_gmt":"2021-02-05T17:37:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/commons.princeton.edu\/invisible-violence\/?page_id=252"},"modified":"2021-04-14T19:30:51","modified_gmt":"2021-04-14T23:30:51","slug":"neoliberalism-in-philadelphia-neighborhoods","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/commons.princeton.edu\/invisible-violence\/neoliberalism-in-philadelphia-neighborhoods\/","title":{"rendered":"Neoliberalism in Philadelphia Neighborhoods"},"content":{"rendered":"

One of the most notable impacts of structural violence caused by neoliberalism is the current<\/span>\u00a0controversies over allowing Safe Injection Sites (SIF\u2019s) to exist and operate<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0in the United States and specifically in Philadelphia neighborhoods affected by the opioid epidemic. Controversy exists on many levels, where both legislature and public outcry to the idea of facilitating drug addiction have inhibited nonprofits such as Safehouse from opening in Philadelphia.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"
Via the Philadelphia Inquirer; https:\/\/www.inquirer.com\/news\/safehouse-third-circuit-decision-safe-injection-site-philadelphia-mcswain-20210112.html<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

It is one thing to classify health under neoliberal frameworks as a commodity that the government should not regulate; it is another to purposefully inhibit nonprofits from attempting to complicate society’s socially constructed notion of health. It is imperative to look at the frameworks (such as the legislature put into effect by those in power) that\u00a0<\/span>attempt to argue that those who have been subject to structural violence do not have the right to choose a health behavior that will allow them to live.\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>An ethnographic approach will show that these frameworks directly oppose residents’ narratives and local needs.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Neoliberalism: Binary Approach to Health<\/h4>\n

Many of these arguments go back to contesting what the idea of “health” is. Neoliberalism pushes for a binary approach to health, where one either makes excellent or poor health choices (notably, these choices are considered completely “independent,” and everyone has the same opportunity of “choice”).<\/p>\n

However, the idea of safe injection facilities raises the question of whether “choices” can exist on a continuum and whether those deemed by society to have made “poor” health choices in the past should have the right to make “choices” to improve their standards of health while acknowledging their drug abuse disorder.<\/p>\n

The arguments surrounding SIF’s show how opioid or drug addiction cases significantly blur the line between health and life. The following chart aims to outline the different viewpoints and arguments surrounding whether SIF’s should be endorsed or prevented.<\/p>\n