Beyond journalism: what is social anthropology of the British National Health Service? A response to Degnen, Tyler, and Blamire


Author: Doctor Terence Rajivan Edward (or 0161__Rajivan, if this helps)
Abstract. What is social anthropology of the British National Health Service? And since there are regular articles in newspapers about the National Health Service, how does social anthropology differ from journalism, if at all? British social anthropology since the 1920s requires an extended period of intensive fieldwork, a year or longer, in which one hopefully lives the native’s way of life. British social anthropology is also, or incorporates, a tradition of thought about social life in which some themes are far more prominent than others, such as kinship and gift exchange, and in which certain concepts figure prominently in analysis, such as reciprocity. I respond to Cathrine Degnen, Katharine Tyler and Joshua Blamire’s 2023 article discussing, amongst other things, the experiences of Brexit voting NHS employees. I propose that the authors make stronger connections to this broader tradition, to better mark it off as social anthropology.
Draft version: version 3 (29th May 2026, page reference added, minor edit "associations"; 19th October 2025, lens metaphor, final parenthetical remark, extended bibliography)
Software used (freeware): Google docs


How long will it take to figure out how to write on these folk?
And will it appear as a metaphorical egg yolk?


        What does the social anthropologist do? In Britain, a popular image of the social anthropologist since the 1920s, when fieldwork became compulsory, is that the anthropologist goes to an exotic and quite isolated tribe, participates in their way of life for an extended period of time (a year or longer), and reports back on their customs and beliefs (and their social structure). But since the 1980s a lot of anthropological fieldwork is now done at home, in Britain, and also not only amongst people whose customs will seem quaint traditions to some. The anthropologist’s fieldwork method is useful in a variety of contexts and consequently is used. But when the anthropologist does fieldwork in Britain, they are at risk of being regarded as no different from a newspaper journalist, a less prestigious position in our society. Perhaps they do not care about less prestige, but perhaps they do.
        What can anthropologists do to distinguish themselves from journalists? The British tradition of anthropology as an academic discipline is not only marked by fieldwork but also by a tradition of thought about social life. Within this tradition, certain themes have a greater prominence than others, such as kinship and gift exchange. And certain concepts figure more heavily in descriptions, such as reciprocity. The themes and concepts which figure prominently are shaped by the greater focus on societies often deemed primitive. In these societies, kinship is more important, assessed by official rules (Strathern 1982). Numerous roles feature kinship restrictions: it is a rule that you cannot perform this role unless you are a member of a certain family or set of families. Thus the emphasis on kinship. Anthropologists also found that gift exchange is a much more important part of the societies they studied, compared to in British society (or at least more noticeable). Thus gift exchange became a prominent theme and with it reciprocity came to figure as a concept in analysis: I give you something and you give something of comparable value to me in return, often with no legal requirement to do so - that is reciprocity. A greater focus on these traditional themes and the greater use of concepts derived from the tradition of British social anthropology is probably the most obvious way in which an anthropologist can try to distinguish their fieldwork in Britain from the work of a journalist. It is interesting to view British society through the lens of an intellectual tradition long shaped by a focus on very different societies, if I may use old metaphors, and the newspaper journalist cannot count on readers being familiar with this tradition already, unlike the professional anthropologist publishing in a professional journal for fellow anthropologists. Their analyses are confined to commonsense reactions.
        I was reading Cathrine Degnen, Katharine Tyler, and Joshua Blamire’s 2023 article “Brexit with a little ‘b’: navigating belonging, ordinary Brexits, and emotional relations.” It discusses experiences related to the 2016 British vote to leave the European Union (which sometimes seems on its way to becoming one country rather than a mere economic union of nations). Amongst other things, the article discusses the experiences of employees in the National Health Service:
"In this final section, we consider the ways in which people who feel they do not fully belong in Remainer workplaces and social groups describe navigating what they can say, and to whom. Rachel, for instance, a white English woman in her fifties, is a middle-class medical professional who voted Leave. She describes working in the NHS as a ‘very left-leaning’ place where the tone is highly ‘patronizing’ towards those who do not agree, with ‘lots of judging going on and, I mean, you just get a bit sick of that’." (2023: 34)
I don’t myself associate voting for remaining within the European Union with being politically left wing and voting to leave with being right wing and even find the associations strange, but let us not contest them here.  A question arising from British anthropology is “Do people involved with the NHS, as employees or patients, suppose that there are obligations of reciprocity to the institution? Do they suppose: it gives all this to me, so I must give something in return?” If they do not, then that would make them unusual compared to various peoples studied by anthropologists. But for patients, officially it is a free (or near free) service. A patient might also say, “I pay my taxes, so I am entitled to the service.” (However, the service one gets might cost considerably more than the taxes one pays, depending on the illness and more.) With regard to both patients and employees, do they suppose that if they have benefitted significantly from the NHS, they should in return vote in elections for options which are best for the NHS? The material on the political climate of the NHS and the responses of Rachel to that climate could have been connected to this theme of reciprocity. Also consider another person whose views are discussed, Lori:
"Lori is a middle-class black woman in her early forties who has lived in the North East for fifteen years. She is a dual citizen in the United Kingdom and an African nation and says that ‘most of my friends and family probably assumed that I’d vote because a lot of black people, a lot of Africans, would have voted to – if they had a vote – to Remain because they think that it’s the haters that voted to Leave’. She explains her vote was deeply influenced by experiences as an NHS employee and by ‘what I’ve seen’ at work. She feels the NHS needs the best highly skilled employees, wherever in the world they come from." (2023: 32)
Does Lori feel that because she has benefitted from NHS employment, she should vote for what is best for the NHS? The anthropologists seem to miss an opportunity to mark out their work clearly as social anthropology, by taking up this theme of reciprocity and the extent to which people suppose there are obligations to reciprocate in Britain compared with the societies more iconically studied by anthropologists.
        But Degnen, Tyler, and Blamire could reply, “You write on the NHS and you do not connect it to this theme.” I am planning to soon! I was writing a lot in 2023 and experienced mental health difficulties and was forced into an NHS ward for around 2 months altogether, from September to November. After around 3 weeks I escaped but was forced back by court order: an order that was unreasonable I think. But I am wondering whether my recommendation belongs to a previous generation, the thinking of a Jeanette Edwards say: Degnen, Tyler, and Blamire will sail very close to journalism but somehow be different. (How is it different? They have a methodology section. And also this may not be a sufficiently hot topic for newspaper articles in 2023. The Brexit vote is important but the vote and the consequent political process was displaced as an object of attention by the Covid-19 pandemic, which is more important for British society I think, and now the rise of the Reform UK is highlighted by the press. Is there room for journalism which the newspapers won’t do?)  


References
Degnen, C., Tyler, K., and Blamire, J. 2023. Brexit with a little ‘b’: navigating belonging, ordinary Brexits, and emotional relations. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 30: 23-41. Available at:
https://rai.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9655.14043
Edward, T.R. 2022. On the very idea of the political right wing: a paradox and meta-paradox. Available on PhilPapers at:
https://philpapers.org/archive/EDWOTV-5.pdf
Edward, T.R. 2025. Should we talk about politics? Views expressed at North Manchester General Hospital. Available on PhilPapers:
https://philpapers.org/rec/EDWSWT
(This contribution of mine converges with some of the research findings in the Degnen, Tyler, Blamire paper.)
Edwards, J. 2004. INCORPORATING INCEST: GAMETE, BODY AND RELATION IN ASSISTED CONCEPTION. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 10(4): 755-774.
Strathern, M. 1982. The place of kinship: kin, class and village status in Elmdon, Essex. In A.P. Cohen (ed.), Belonging: Identity and social organisation in British rural cultures. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Sykes, K. 2005. Arguing with anthropology: An introduction to critical theories of the gift. London: Routledge.