Does One Health need an ontological turn?
One Health has gained global prominence in recent years. Alongside its emergence, there have been extensive social science critiques. In this contribution, we make the case for the value of recent theoretical discussions in the field of anthropology – sometimes referred to as an ‘ontological turn’....
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2025-12-01
|
| Series: | Critical Public Health |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/09581596.2025.2497358 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849729131130912768 |
|---|---|
| author | Andrea Kaiser-Grolimund Salome A. Bukachi Julia Karuga Laura Kämpfen Frédéric Keck Jakob Zinsstag Hannah Brown |
| author_facet | Andrea Kaiser-Grolimund Salome A. Bukachi Julia Karuga Laura Kämpfen Frédéric Keck Jakob Zinsstag Hannah Brown |
| author_sort | Andrea Kaiser-Grolimund |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | One Health has gained global prominence in recent years. Alongside its emergence, there have been extensive social science critiques. In this contribution, we make the case for the value of recent theoretical discussions in the field of anthropology – sometimes referred to as an ‘ontological turn’. We argue that taking theory seriously benefits One Health as an integrated approach that has interdisciplinary collaborations at its heart, but which encounters challenges when conversations based on different epistemological and ontological positions result in voices talking past each other. In this contribution, we offer two examples of what One Health specialists can gain from anthropologically-informed ontological thinking. Both require questioning ontological premises. Firstly, questioning assumptions about distinctions between animals and humans. Secondly, questioning the universality of biomedical knowledge. In the conclusion, we underline the importance of an ontological openness when it comes to the constitution and position of the actors as well as different bodies of knowledge that are involved in One Health and we show that talking to each other with awareness of different ontological positions is not impossible. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-c6302c9b84de49dfa50e19ad2c0bca8f |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 0958-1596 1469-3682 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-12-01 |
| publisher | Taylor & Francis Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Critical Public Health |
| spelling | doaj-art-c6302c9b84de49dfa50e19ad2c0bca8f2025-08-20T03:09:19ZengTaylor & Francis GroupCritical Public Health0958-15961469-36822025-12-0135110.1080/09581596.2025.2497358Does One Health need an ontological turn?Andrea Kaiser-Grolimund0Salome A. Bukachi1Julia Karuga2Laura Kämpfen3Frédéric Keck4Jakob Zinsstag5Hannah Brown6Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, SwitzerlandDepartment of Anthropology, Durham University, Durham, UKDepartment of Anthropology, Durham University, Durham, UKDepartment of Social Sciences, University of Basel, Basel, SwitzerlandLaboratoire d’Anthropologie Sociale, Paris, FranceDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, SwitzerlandDepartment of Anthropology, Durham University, Durham, UKOne Health has gained global prominence in recent years. Alongside its emergence, there have been extensive social science critiques. In this contribution, we make the case for the value of recent theoretical discussions in the field of anthropology – sometimes referred to as an ‘ontological turn’. We argue that taking theory seriously benefits One Health as an integrated approach that has interdisciplinary collaborations at its heart, but which encounters challenges when conversations based on different epistemological and ontological positions result in voices talking past each other. In this contribution, we offer two examples of what One Health specialists can gain from anthropologically-informed ontological thinking. Both require questioning ontological premises. Firstly, questioning assumptions about distinctions between animals and humans. Secondly, questioning the universality of biomedical knowledge. In the conclusion, we underline the importance of an ontological openness when it comes to the constitution and position of the actors as well as different bodies of knowledge that are involved in One Health and we show that talking to each other with awareness of different ontological positions is not impossible.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/09581596.2025.2497358One Healthontologyanthropologyhuman-animal healthmultispecies ethnography |
| spellingShingle | Andrea Kaiser-Grolimund Salome A. Bukachi Julia Karuga Laura Kämpfen Frédéric Keck Jakob Zinsstag Hannah Brown Does One Health need an ontological turn? Critical Public Health One Health ontology anthropology human-animal health multispecies ethnography |
| title | Does One Health need an ontological turn? |
| title_full | Does One Health need an ontological turn? |
| title_fullStr | Does One Health need an ontological turn? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Does One Health need an ontological turn? |
| title_short | Does One Health need an ontological turn? |
| title_sort | does one health need an ontological turn |
| topic | One Health ontology anthropology human-animal health multispecies ethnography |
| url | https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/09581596.2025.2497358 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT andreakaisergrolimund doesonehealthneedanontologicalturn AT salomeabukachi doesonehealthneedanontologicalturn AT juliakaruga doesonehealthneedanontologicalturn AT laurakampfen doesonehealthneedanontologicalturn AT frederickeck doesonehealthneedanontologicalturn AT jakobzinsstag doesonehealthneedanontologicalturn AT hannahbrown doesonehealthneedanontologicalturn |