Sabotage, feeding and collusion after bariatric surgery. And the winner is . . .? A psychodynamic and systemic perspective on sabotage and feeding after bariatric surgery by means of a case series analysis.
Friedrich Stiefel, Laurent Michaud, Céline Bourquin-Sachse, Sophia Quirke-Macfarlane, Jane Ogden
{"title":"Sabotage, feeding and collusion after bariatric surgery. And the winner is . . .? A psychodynamic and systemic perspective on sabotage and feeding after bariatric surgery by means of a case series analysis.","authors":"Friedrich Stiefel, Laurent Michaud, Céline Bourquin-Sachse, Sophia Quirke-Macfarlane, Jane Ogden","doi":"10.1177/13634593251319928","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the context of bariatric surgery, negative social support has recently been conceptualized in terms of sabotage, feeding behaviour and collusion undermining a person's effort to lose or maintain weight. While sabotage and feeding behaviour are thought to be motivated consciously, collusion is understood as a bond, by which protagonists are tied together sharing an unresolved and unconscious psychological issue such as dependency, domination and submission, and so on. Drawing upon a systemic and psychodynamic understanding, we analysed interviews with patients (<i>n</i> = 10) who had undergone bariatric surgery and their partners (<i>n</i> = 10) focusing on support. We selected interviews (<i>n</i> = 4 + 4), illustrative of sabotage, feeding, collusion and co-evolution based on the comprehensiveness of information, their emblematic quality and suitability to delineate these phenomena. Our analysis confirms that negative social support can be considered as an attempt to reestablish a level of homeostasis within the couple. However, rather than being intentional, we consider that sabotage and feeding behaviour are better conceptualised as consequences of collusive relationships.</p>","PeriodicalId":12944,"journal":{"name":"Health","volume":" ","pages":"13634593251319928"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13634593251319928","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In the context of bariatric surgery, negative social support has recently been conceptualized in terms of sabotage, feeding behaviour and collusion undermining a person's effort to lose or maintain weight. While sabotage and feeding behaviour are thought to be motivated consciously, collusion is understood as a bond, by which protagonists are tied together sharing an unresolved and unconscious psychological issue such as dependency, domination and submission, and so on. Drawing upon a systemic and psychodynamic understanding, we analysed interviews with patients (n = 10) who had undergone bariatric surgery and their partners (n = 10) focusing on support. We selected interviews (n = 4 + 4), illustrative of sabotage, feeding, collusion and co-evolution based on the comprehensiveness of information, their emblematic quality and suitability to delineate these phenomena. Our analysis confirms that negative social support can be considered as an attempt to reestablish a level of homeostasis within the couple. However, rather than being intentional, we consider that sabotage and feeding behaviour are better conceptualised as consequences of collusive relationships.
期刊介绍:
Health: is published four times per year and attempts in each number to offer a mix of articles that inform or that provoke debate. The readership of the journal is wide and drawn from different disciplines and from workers both inside and outside the health care professions. Widely abstracted, Health: ensures authors an extensive and informed readership for their work. It also seeks to offer authors as short a delay as possible between submission and publication. Most articles are reviewed within 4-6 weeks of submission and those accepted are published within a year of that decision.