Mmunicated to hold experts to account. Lifeworld reforms to the administrative and economic subsystems make them more internally democratic and receptive to new needs and concerns of citizens (Cohen, 1995). Through public forms of argumentation, opinion can be integrated into institutional frameworks to change them without destroying them. While Habermas’ discussion of discursive democracy focuses on the institution of law, similar currents have been applied to medicine (Williams and Popay, 2001). Indeed, GW 4064 price Scambler and Kelleher (2006) bring our attention to the new forms of solidarity representing a `culture of challenge’. Discontent with the health-care system is expressed in calls for increased accountability and patient/citizen participation in clinical and policy decision making. Increasingly, expert medical/scientific knowledge is viewed by the citizenry as espousing the vested interests of the powerful PD-148515MedChemExpress Avasimibe medical profession. Patients, family members and the public at large are questioning the quality and viability of medical diagnostic and treatment decisions (Williams and Popay, 2001). If Habermas is right, social change is not to be achieved in the traditional Marxist terms of class struggle over material reproductive functions, but through `new’ social movements operating at the juncture of the system and lifeworlds. These new social movements are productive challenges to the identities, meanings294 ?2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1477-8211 Social Theory Health Vol. 12, 3, 291?Aesthetic rationality of the popular expressive artsand associations implicated in the bureaucratization of services and life-problems. The emerging solidarities steer institutions to democratize their communicative infrastructures and reduce power differentials between `lay’ populations and the professional, certified experts. In the health-care arena, self-help groups are a manifestation of the new social movements concerned with patients’ quality of life and more equitable access to care and improved provision of services. Such groups construct new personal and collective narratives about illness while lobbying for system changes such as more equitable distribution of health services (Scambler, 2001). To our knowledge, aesthetic rationality within self-help groups has not been analysed. The study reported in this article does precisely this. There are other theoretical frameworks that could be relevant to the analysis of undistorted lifeworld communication among breast cancer survivors. The medical gaze as a form of surveillance, the body as socially constructed and the notion of governmentality all offer insight into the process of lifeworld colonization processes in the health-care context. However, these concepts provide little grounding for an analysis of effective resistance because new expressions of patients’ agency become new forms of control and constraining regimes of power (Lohan and Coleman, 2005). Foucault’s recommendations for resistance are directed to uncovering hegemonic discourses. But, in the course of revealing `regimes of truth’, we become trapped in the new discourse, with its inherent critique of power no more groundable than other critiques (Giddens, 1982 cited in Jones, 2001). Although Foucault responded to these charges in his latter work by focusing on the `conscious creation’ of a self, it is a `self’ not created in relation to others: the concept is essentially asocial (Jones, 2001). In contrast, Habermas’s concept of lifewor.Mmunicated to hold experts to account. Lifeworld reforms to the administrative and economic subsystems make them more internally democratic and receptive to new needs and concerns of citizens (Cohen, 1995). Through public forms of argumentation, opinion can be integrated into institutional frameworks to change them without destroying them. While Habermas’ discussion of discursive democracy focuses on the institution of law, similar currents have been applied to medicine (Williams and Popay, 2001). Indeed, Scambler and Kelleher (2006) bring our attention to the new forms of solidarity representing a `culture of challenge’. Discontent with the health-care system is expressed in calls for increased accountability and patient/citizen participation in clinical and policy decision making. Increasingly, expert medical/scientific knowledge is viewed by the citizenry as espousing the vested interests of the powerful medical profession. Patients, family members and the public at large are questioning the quality and viability of medical diagnostic and treatment decisions (Williams and Popay, 2001). If Habermas is right, social change is not to be achieved in the traditional Marxist terms of class struggle over material reproductive functions, but through `new’ social movements operating at the juncture of the system and lifeworlds. These new social movements are productive challenges to the identities, meanings294 ?2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1477-8211 Social Theory Health Vol. 12, 3, 291?Aesthetic rationality of the popular expressive artsand associations implicated in the bureaucratization of services and life-problems. The emerging solidarities steer institutions to democratize their communicative infrastructures and reduce power differentials between `lay’ populations and the professional, certified experts. In the health-care arena, self-help groups are a manifestation of the new social movements concerned with patients’ quality of life and more equitable access to care and improved provision of services. Such groups construct new personal and collective narratives about illness while lobbying for system changes such as more equitable distribution of health services (Scambler, 2001). To our knowledge, aesthetic rationality within self-help groups has not been analysed. The study reported in this article does precisely this. There are other theoretical frameworks that could be relevant to the analysis of undistorted lifeworld communication among breast cancer survivors. The medical gaze as a form of surveillance, the body as socially constructed and the notion of governmentality all offer insight into the process of lifeworld colonization processes in the health-care context. However, these concepts provide little grounding for an analysis of effective resistance because new expressions of patients’ agency become new forms of control and constraining regimes of power (Lohan and Coleman, 2005). Foucault’s recommendations for resistance are directed to uncovering hegemonic discourses. But, in the course of revealing `regimes of truth’, we become trapped in the new discourse, with its inherent critique of power no more groundable than other critiques (Giddens, 1982 cited in Jones, 2001). Although Foucault responded to these charges in his latter work by focusing on the `conscious creation’ of a self, it is a `self’ not created in relation to others: the concept is essentially asocial (Jones, 2001). In contrast, Habermas’s concept of lifewor.
