Feigned Narratives Do Not Always Satisfy Needs

IF 0.1 0 PHILOSOPHY Balkan Journal of Philosophy Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.5840/BJP202113110
L. Gurova
{"title":"Feigned Narratives Do Not Always Satisfy Needs","authors":"L. Gurova","doi":"10.5840/BJP202113110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When Bradley Lewis announced in 2014 that psychiatry needed to make a \"narrative turn\", he backed up his appeal as follows: (1) the different explanatory models of mental disorders that are currently competing in psychiatry tell us different stories about mental health; (2) none of these stories has the privilege of being the only true one, and its alternatives the wrong ones; (3) the choice of a model in each case should be made in dialogue with the patient in order to ensure that the model will be chosen that best meets the patient’s goals and desires and, accordingly, would best support the process of recovery. The latter suggestion, however, is not easy to follow when the patients’ subjective goals and desires diverge from the clinical goal of returning the patients to a normal way of life, as is the case with the so-called factitious disorders. The problem is worsened by the theory-ladenness of the interpretations of patients’ first-person narratives. This paper argues against a common assumption that biases our understanding of abnormal behavior, in particular the behavior of those who feign illness. The assumption in question is the following: that such behavior satisfies certain – possibly unknown – psychological needs.","PeriodicalId":41126,"journal":{"name":"Balkan Journal of Philosophy","volume":"13 1","pages":"83-90"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Balkan Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/BJP202113110","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When Bradley Lewis announced in 2014 that psychiatry needed to make a "narrative turn", he backed up his appeal as follows: (1) the different explanatory models of mental disorders that are currently competing in psychiatry tell us different stories about mental health; (2) none of these stories has the privilege of being the only true one, and its alternatives the wrong ones; (3) the choice of a model in each case should be made in dialogue with the patient in order to ensure that the model will be chosen that best meets the patient’s goals and desires and, accordingly, would best support the process of recovery. The latter suggestion, however, is not easy to follow when the patients’ subjective goals and desires diverge from the clinical goal of returning the patients to a normal way of life, as is the case with the so-called factitious disorders. The problem is worsened by the theory-ladenness of the interpretations of patients’ first-person narratives. This paper argues against a common assumption that biases our understanding of abnormal behavior, in particular the behavior of those who feign illness. The assumption in question is the following: that such behavior satisfies certain – possibly unknown – psychological needs.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
虚构的叙述并不总是能满足需求
2014年,当布拉德利·刘易斯(Bradley Lewis)宣布精神病学需要进行“叙事转向”时,他为自己的呼吁提供了如下支持:(1)目前在精神病学领域竞争的精神障碍的不同解释模型告诉我们关于精神健康的不同故事;(2)这些故事中没有一个是唯一真实的,其他的都是错误的;(3)每种情况下的模式选择应与患者对话,以确保所选择的模式最符合患者的目标和愿望,从而最能支持康复过程。然而,当患者的主观目标和愿望偏离了让患者恢复正常生活方式的临床目标时,后一种建议就不容易遵循了,就像所谓的人为障碍一样。对病人第一人称叙述的理论解释加重了这个问题。本文反对一种常见的假设,这种假设会影响我们对异常行为的理解,尤其是那些假装生病的人的行为。这里的假设是这样的:这种行为满足了某种——可能未知的——心理需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: The Balkan Journal of Philosophy is a peer-reviewed international periodical, academic in spirit, that publishes high-quality papers on current problems and discussions in philosophy. While open to all fields and interests, the journal devotes special attention to the treatment of philosophical problems in the Balkans and south-eastern Europe, and to their influence on the development of philosophy in this region. All papers are publisihed in English. BJP is published under the auspices of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
期刊最新文献
Creativity after Automation Artificial Intelligence: Three Philosophical Interpretations of the Anthropocentric Frame of Reference Review of Nonka Bogomilova's Book The Balkans: Marked Roads (1991-2016), Sofia, 2020 A Theory of Aesthetic Validity, Inspired by Thomas Kuhn The Interrelation between Philosophy for Children (P4C) and Creative Thinking
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1