Which nanny - the state or industry? Wowsers, teetotallers and the fun police in public health advocacy

Heather Yeatman, Rachel DAVEY

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    11 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    There is no option for avoiding the 'Nanny'. The only option for communities is to make sensible choices about which 'Nanny' will dominate their lives and at what time, which 'Nanny' will make us healthy and which 'Nanny' will undermine our health and our freedoms. Those political ideologues who use 'nanny statism' largely do so to further their own agenda and are invariably inconsistent in how they apply their concept of non-interference. Who's afraid of the 'Nanny State' is not the question should be asking. Rather the question ought to be - which Nanny should cause the greatest concern? The prime reason that the 'Nanny State' conjures fear is that it is a threat to the freedoms that are a key element of democratic societies. The tenet understood by the concept of the 'Nanny State' is that the more regulation that is made by the State, the more freedoms are whittled away and it is the intention of the wowsers, the teetotallers and the fun police to do so.It is time to rethink the 'nanny' concept, from the narrow sense of loss of individual freedoms (and one which favours 'free enterprise' and money making interests of big industry) to that which enables individuals and populations freedom from domination. Such a change particularly pertains to our understandings of the role of government.Pettit's work in framing the notion of freedom in terms of 'dominance' rather than 'interference' is pertinent. It provides a more realistic way in which to understand why industry uses the 'Nanny State' argument. It is to maintain its own dominance (i.e. in matters of public health) rather than allowing governments to interfere with that dominance.Public health advocacy work is regularly undermined by the 'Nanny State' phrase. This paper explores a series of examples which illustrate how public health is being undermined by the 'Nanny Industry' and how industry uses fear of government regulation to maintain its own dominance, to maintain its profits and to do so at a significant financial and social cost to the community and to public health.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1030-1037
    Number of pages8
    JournalPublic Health
    Volume129
    Issue number8
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2015

    Fingerprint

    Consumer Advocacy
    Police
    Industry
    Public Health
    Fear
    Government Regulation
    Costs and Cost Analysis
    Health

    Cite this

    @article{a15ac1cb8d1649bfa5571cabd1c49c2b,
    title = "Which nanny - the state or industry? Wowsers, teetotallers and the fun police in public health advocacy",
    abstract = "There is no option for avoiding the 'Nanny'. The only option for communities is to make sensible choices about which 'Nanny' will dominate their lives and at what time, which 'Nanny' will make us healthy and which 'Nanny' will undermine our health and our freedoms. Those political ideologues who use 'nanny statism' largely do so to further their own agenda and are invariably inconsistent in how they apply their concept of non-interference. Who's afraid of the 'Nanny State' is not the question should be asking. Rather the question ought to be - which Nanny should cause the greatest concern? The prime reason that the 'Nanny State' conjures fear is that it is a threat to the freedoms that are a key element of democratic societies. The tenet understood by the concept of the 'Nanny State' is that the more regulation that is made by the State, the more freedoms are whittled away and it is the intention of the wowsers, the teetotallers and the fun police to do so.It is time to rethink the 'nanny' concept, from the narrow sense of loss of individual freedoms (and one which favours 'free enterprise' and money making interests of big industry) to that which enables individuals and populations freedom from domination. Such a change particularly pertains to our understandings of the role of government.Pettit's work in framing the notion of freedom in terms of 'dominance' rather than 'interference' is pertinent. It provides a more realistic way in which to understand why industry uses the 'Nanny State' argument. It is to maintain its own dominance (i.e. in matters of public health) rather than allowing governments to interfere with that dominance.Public health advocacy work is regularly undermined by the 'Nanny State' phrase. This paper explores a series of examples which illustrate how public health is being undermined by the 'Nanny Industry' and how industry uses fear of government regulation to maintain its own dominance, to maintain its profits and to do so at a significant financial and social cost to the community and to public health.",
    author = "Heather Yeatman and Rachel DAVEY",
    year = "2015",
    doi = "10.1016/j.puhe.2015.01.031",
    language = "English",
    volume = "129",
    pages = "1030--1037",
    journal = "Public Health",
    issn = "0033-3506",
    publisher = "Elsevier",
    number = "8",

    }

    Which nanny - the state or industry? Wowsers, teetotallers and the fun police in public health advocacy. / Yeatman, Heather; DAVEY, Rachel.

    In: Public Health, Vol. 129, No. 8, 2015, p. 1030-1037.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Which nanny - the state or industry? Wowsers, teetotallers and the fun police in public health advocacy

    AU - Yeatman, Heather

    AU - DAVEY, Rachel

    PY - 2015

    Y1 - 2015

    N2 - There is no option for avoiding the 'Nanny'. The only option for communities is to make sensible choices about which 'Nanny' will dominate their lives and at what time, which 'Nanny' will make us healthy and which 'Nanny' will undermine our health and our freedoms. Those political ideologues who use 'nanny statism' largely do so to further their own agenda and are invariably inconsistent in how they apply their concept of non-interference. Who's afraid of the 'Nanny State' is not the question should be asking. Rather the question ought to be - which Nanny should cause the greatest concern? The prime reason that the 'Nanny State' conjures fear is that it is a threat to the freedoms that are a key element of democratic societies. The tenet understood by the concept of the 'Nanny State' is that the more regulation that is made by the State, the more freedoms are whittled away and it is the intention of the wowsers, the teetotallers and the fun police to do so.It is time to rethink the 'nanny' concept, from the narrow sense of loss of individual freedoms (and one which favours 'free enterprise' and money making interests of big industry) to that which enables individuals and populations freedom from domination. Such a change particularly pertains to our understandings of the role of government.Pettit's work in framing the notion of freedom in terms of 'dominance' rather than 'interference' is pertinent. It provides a more realistic way in which to understand why industry uses the 'Nanny State' argument. It is to maintain its own dominance (i.e. in matters of public health) rather than allowing governments to interfere with that dominance.Public health advocacy work is regularly undermined by the 'Nanny State' phrase. This paper explores a series of examples which illustrate how public health is being undermined by the 'Nanny Industry' and how industry uses fear of government regulation to maintain its own dominance, to maintain its profits and to do so at a significant financial and social cost to the community and to public health.

    AB - There is no option for avoiding the 'Nanny'. The only option for communities is to make sensible choices about which 'Nanny' will dominate their lives and at what time, which 'Nanny' will make us healthy and which 'Nanny' will undermine our health and our freedoms. Those political ideologues who use 'nanny statism' largely do so to further their own agenda and are invariably inconsistent in how they apply their concept of non-interference. Who's afraid of the 'Nanny State' is not the question should be asking. Rather the question ought to be - which Nanny should cause the greatest concern? The prime reason that the 'Nanny State' conjures fear is that it is a threat to the freedoms that are a key element of democratic societies. The tenet understood by the concept of the 'Nanny State' is that the more regulation that is made by the State, the more freedoms are whittled away and it is the intention of the wowsers, the teetotallers and the fun police to do so.It is time to rethink the 'nanny' concept, from the narrow sense of loss of individual freedoms (and one which favours 'free enterprise' and money making interests of big industry) to that which enables individuals and populations freedom from domination. Such a change particularly pertains to our understandings of the role of government.Pettit's work in framing the notion of freedom in terms of 'dominance' rather than 'interference' is pertinent. It provides a more realistic way in which to understand why industry uses the 'Nanny State' argument. It is to maintain its own dominance (i.e. in matters of public health) rather than allowing governments to interfere with that dominance.Public health advocacy work is regularly undermined by the 'Nanny State' phrase. This paper explores a series of examples which illustrate how public health is being undermined by the 'Nanny Industry' and how industry uses fear of government regulation to maintain its own dominance, to maintain its profits and to do so at a significant financial and social cost to the community and to public health.

    U2 - 10.1016/j.puhe.2015.01.031

    DO - 10.1016/j.puhe.2015.01.031

    M3 - Article

    VL - 129

    SP - 1030

    EP - 1037

    JO - Public Health

    JF - Public Health

    SN - 0033-3506

    IS - 8

    ER -