Summary: Personal Definition Of Health

Personal Definition of Health Part B
By: Lisa Barrie
Macewan University
Oct 1, 2014
HLST 152 BN01
Kathleen Miller

Personal Definition of Health Part B
When I type in the word “health” into google it’s pretty interesting what results I receive. From the top 3 results the first is health.com (http://www.health.com) a site dedicated to giving advice about “healthy” recipes, sex/relationship, working out, and beauty advice. The second and third are Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health) and Health Canada (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/index-eng.php) respectively. Wikipedia gives the anatomical aspect of health saying “This article is about the human condition. For other uses, see Health (disambiguation).” Health Canada is advertising
Halloween safety and encourages people to sign up to be a donor. These results represent what Canadians are looking at in regard to health. About a month ago I was asked to give my own definition of health. I had an idea of what health meant to me, but I never really sat down and specify what that word meant. So far my definition hasn’t really changed, instead it has become more detailed/organized, in comparison to the Marxist theory there are some agreements and disagreements that I have regarding health. As mentioned earlier my definition of health has definitely became more thorough. A month ago, I explained traits that where part of my definition but not the definition its self. Health is a multifaceted concept, in other words my definition is more a model. The best way to describe my model of health is by creating a mental tree diagram. At the top we have the word health. Than it branches off into individual and community. Focusing on the individual it branches off into 3 concepts mind, body and spirit. When speaking about the mind it’s about emotional stability. Having a good balance of emotions means you’re not constantly happy nor are you always depressed.
Mental stability is being able to see positive when life doesn’t go as plan and make the best of it. The body is the anatomical side of health. Meaning keeping fit by gaining good eating habits and exercise. Maintaining proper functioning of your organs without complication. The spirit some will argue is part of mental stability. I see spirituality as its own essence. Spirituality is understanding your purpose, finding the connection that is bigger than yourself. Some find that with religion, others through art, the environment etc. When you are connected and open with your spirituality there is an inner peace that gets satisfied and an acceptance about life in general. These three concepts don’t just branch off from the individual but they connect with each other. Community can be branched off to family, work, friends/peers and society. Family normally consist of our parent’s, possible siblings, cousins, grandparents, pets etc. Family connections are generally the first that we make in our lives and tend to be the longest. When those connections are strong it aids to feeling balanced and content. But the adverse effect can occur when a death or
fight occurs with those members. The friend’s branch is a lot like family except the people here are not blood related. Work is completely different there are many aspects to work. We gain relationships with our bosses and co-workers. There is the sense of teamwork and competition at work. The main goal is to be the best in our career. When work is balanced it heightens self-confidence, and motivation. Society encompasses the branches of general public and government. General public opinion influences the individual’s perspective and also dictates how life is for society. The government is supposed to be an overseeing force that gives what the majority public wants. This is not always the case. An example of this would be war. It drains the community negatively affects friends and family members, work life and ultimately the individual who in turn may be mentally, physically and spiritually deteriorating. In the end all of these branches are connected and there is a strong connection with individual and community. When all are balanced that is the ultimate state of health. Realistically we learn that majority of the time a section in our life is off balance. The skill to learn is to strengthen the other branches to offset that imbalance to stay content. Now with Marxism it’s a theory developed from the writings of Karl Marx (1818-83) and Friedrich Engels (1820-95) (John and Jennie 2012, p.29). When people hear the term Marxist there is many negative reactions. Marxism aka “materialism” is a society that is dominated by a constant power struggle between two classes, the bourgeoisie (capitalist) and proletariat (wage earners/workers) (John and Jennie 2012,p.29).The capitalist class gains more power by exploiting their labourers, paying the workers a wage that is far more less than the value of the products they create. The Marxist theory seems to be an observation. Marx does believe that human beings are products from their society (John and Jennie 2012, p.29).Regardless of an individual’s status they can change their social conditions (John and Jennie 2012, p.29). Over time the theory has morphed into many different types of “Marxism” some nowhere close to Marx’s writings. Marxism focuses more on the community rather than the individual. Healthcare structures around the world challenge these theories. Dr. Vincente Navarro focuses on this area of Marxism. In his article Policy Without Politics Navarro uses the example of the United States and how they privatized healthcare negatively effects their society. “The extent of coverage provided by a country’s health services is directly related to the level of development of that country’s democratic process” (Navarro 2003, p. 64). He continues to explain that in America even though they have a democratic government their leaders are “owned” by the individuals who put them there; the big company owners, pharmaceutical companies who fund their campaigns. Under a false notion of democracy the working class are victim to the capitalist hence why they don’t have a universal available health care plan (Navarro 2003). While countries with a strong working class like the Norway and Sweden who have long periods of government have amazing stats (Navarro 2003). An average of “70% of the labour force is unionized, with highly centralized & powerful unions negotiating collective bargaining agreements with employers and associations” (Navarro 2003, p. 65). A large percentage of public employment is in the health care, education & social service section of these countries (Navarro 2003). As a result these “worker friendly” countries have better public coverage for medical & social care, and lower infant mortality, and citizens living longer than average (Navarro 2003). A general focus for researchers like Vincent Navarro, is how a capitalist society effects the worker in regards to their working and living conditions, and how it contribute to illness (John and Jennie 2012, p.31). These scholars question the roles of the medical profession in society (John and Jennie 2012, p.31). Basically the capitalist trying to gain more money and power create a toxic work environment and poor living conditions for the working class (John and Jennie 2012, p.31). The result is “higher mortality and morbidity rates” (John and Jennie 2012, p.31). When people are sick who do they go to? Doctors are the final say of what our health is, they prescribe us medication that we must pay for and that’s how the cycle goes. Workers have no control over their work which means no control over their life which includes health (John and Jennie 2012, p.30).
To compare my definition of health and Marxism is limited.
I can only compare the community aspect of my definition with Marxism. Healthcare in a capitalist society is being treated as a commodity (John and Jennie 2012, p.31). In my definition a government must represent the majority. At the end of the day health is part of our everyday life. If a person stops breathing your dead and nothing matters. Death is the final say and once your dead everything else is irrelevant. Health should not be bought for the highest bidder. If an individual lived in a completely capitalist society than they would never achieve equilibrium because they would not have ideal living conditions and strains in many other aspects of their lives. Yet if an individual lived in a 100 percent Marxist society everyone would be equal which would eradicate competition. Competition is good for the mind of an individual and their work life. When you overcome an obstacle you gain a satisfaction that improves a person’s health. If a person was to reach their optimal health based on my definition of health, they would be living in a world that has a little bit of both
concepts. Overall my definition of health will probably change over time. With more education it will become more specific or drastically alter. Marxism has opened up my mind to how I see community health and question those in power. What are their objectives? Do those in power really represent the majority? Next time when I go to a doctor I will ask questions, not to be a pain but to make sure they are doing what’s best for me. With that my official definition of health is as follows: Health is a connection between the individual and community. For the individual they have a strong positive balance between their mind, body, and spirituality creating healthy habits throughout their life. At the same time this individual is part of a community with content familial & friend ties, they thrives in their work environment and contribute positively to their government. This government in turn will represent the majority while respecting the minority’s opinions and values. The community has strong communication that teaches one another and willingness to help all members of the community and to deal with the wrong doers accordingly as to the majority’s consensus.

References
Germov, John, & Hornosty, Jennie. (2012). Theorizing Health: Major Theoretical Perspectives in Health Sociology. In J. Germov & J. Hornosty (Ed.), Second Opinion An Introduction to Health Sociology (1st Canadian ed., pp 23-31). Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press Canada

Navarro, V (2003). Policy Without Politics: The Limits of Social Engineering. American Journal Of Public Health, 93 (1), 64-67 Retrieved from http://ezproxy.macewan.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ofs&AN=507800356&site=eds-live&scope=site