Paper short abstract:

An autoethnographic research on the difference between care and control in the treatment of Type 1 Diabetes during the Covid-19 pandemic, despite the epistemological, ethical and political commitment of the research and its implications, it was written in an unconventional genre: the dialogue.

Paper long abstract:

Is it time to reveal: the dissertation is written in the form of a dialogue, because it deals with a topic that is so sensitive to me that I don't have the courage to talk about it looking into anyone's eyes? Do I say: “I needed to invent a character, who is not really anyone other than a companion, to be able to describe and analyze my feelings and my experiences of suffering”? Do I reveal that I purposely place whoever reads me in the position of someone who listens to a conversation between strangers and enters an intimate place that they might not have entered if it hadn't been from the corner of their eye? Describe the attempt to account in an academic text, with its format and requirements, of these many levels that constituted the experience: professional, personal, collective, subjective? That was the only way I could write what I concluded about my particular experience: the impact of social isolation on the population considered a “risk group” was not a practice of care, but of control and moral adherence, leading to social exclusion and the subjective production of dead-lives? Could it be, finally, that I assume that this was, for now, the only way I was able to scientifically write down my own fragility? That I could sensitively communicate my research results maintaining a epistemological, ethical and political commitment?

Yes, I think it is.

I wrote an anthropological scientific research as a dialogue.