Abstract
My paper focuses on a compulsory vaccination system in the Czech Republic. Building on qualitative research (interviews and participant observation) with persons dealing with the vaccination system (critics, supporters, politicians, medical professionals, patients, parents etc.), I show how basic principles of anthropological work such as giving space to a wide range of the worldviews and considering them equally legitimate is deeply connected with the political engagement, and brings challenging ethical and methodological issues.
Debates about the vaccination often provoke strong responses and advocates of different opinions are portrayed as two purely antagonistic camps. The critics of vaccination tend to be presented as too emotional, irrational or even stupid.
Similarly, the scientific authority and the rationality of researchers working in this environment are sometimes questioned as well. So I am put in situation when I have to advocate for my own authority and legitimate my research's interest likewise I try to advocate for legitimization of other participants' possition.
However, these situations bring very fruitful insight into the issue and are integral part of the field. Therefore, I show how my "activist" or "engaged" approach in the field of compulsory vaccination is not concerned with a question of vaccinate or not to vaccinateper se but with the fundamental advocating for the legitimacy of different worldviews.This paper is part of the research project Civic Engagement and the Politics of Care, funded by the Czech Science Foundation.