"对真正的精神病学来说太软弱"?意大利病房中强制与对话之间的性别边界划分。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Health Pub Date : 2024-02-26 DOI:10.1177/13634593241234479
Eleonora Rossero, Raffaella Ferrero Camoletto
{"title":"\"对真正的精神病学来说太软弱\"?意大利病房中强制与对话之间的性别边界划分。","authors":"Eleonora Rossero, Raffaella Ferrero Camoletto","doi":"10.1177/13634593241234479","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Psychiatric practice has always entailed a coercive dimension, visible not only in its formal expressions (e.g. compulsory treatment) but in many informal and implicit forms. In fact, contemporary psychiatric practices are characterized by an interplay of coercion and dialog to be interpreted not as binary categories but as extremes of a spectrum. Within this perspective, it becomes crucial to draw boundaries attributing meaning to professional identities and practices in psychiatric work. This is particularly relevant in acute wards: to explore this issue, we selected two cases according to a most-different-cases design, one ward with a mechanical-restraint approach compared to one with no-mechanical-restraint. We argue that gender, mobilized to performatively draw distinctions and hierarchies in order to define and justify different approaches to psychiatric crises along the continuum between coercion and dialog, is a key dimension in the boundary-making process. The analysis identifies two main dimensions of drawing gendered boundaries: inter-gender boundaries (overlapping the binary distinction between masculinity and femininity with a more coercive or relational-dialogic approach to crisis) and intra-gender boundaries (distinguishing and ranking of different masculinities and femininities), associating a less coercive orientation with a devirilized masculinity.</p>","PeriodicalId":12944,"journal":{"name":"Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"Too soft for real psychiatry\\\"? Gendered boundary-making between coercion and dialog in Italian wards.\",\"authors\":\"Eleonora Rossero, Raffaella Ferrero Camoletto\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13634593241234479\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Psychiatric practice has always entailed a coercive dimension, visible not only in its formal expressions (e.g. compulsory treatment) but in many informal and implicit forms. In fact, contemporary psychiatric practices are characterized by an interplay of coercion and dialog to be interpreted not as binary categories but as extremes of a spectrum. Within this perspective, it becomes crucial to draw boundaries attributing meaning to professional identities and practices in psychiatric work. This is particularly relevant in acute wards: to explore this issue, we selected two cases according to a most-different-cases design, one ward with a mechanical-restraint approach compared to one with no-mechanical-restraint. We argue that gender, mobilized to performatively draw distinctions and hierarchies in order to define and justify different approaches to psychiatric crises along the continuum between coercion and dialog, is a key dimension in the boundary-making process. The analysis identifies two main dimensions of drawing gendered boundaries: inter-gender boundaries (overlapping the binary distinction between masculinity and femininity with a more coercive or relational-dialogic approach to crisis) and intra-gender boundaries (distinguishing and ranking of different masculinities and femininities), associating a less coercive orientation with a devirilized masculinity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12944,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13634593241234479\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13634593241234479","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

摘要

精神病治疗实践一直包含着强制的因素,这不仅体现在其正式的表现形式(如强制治疗)上,也体现在许多非正式和隐含的形式上。事实上,当代精神病治疗实践的特点是强制与对话的相互作用,不能将其视为二元对立的范畴,而应视为光谱的两个极端。从这个角度来看,为精神科工作中的专业身份和实践划定界限就变得至关重要。这一点在急症病房中尤为重要:为了探讨这个问题,我们根据 "最不同病例设计 "选择了两个病例,一个病房采用机械约束方法,另一个病房则不采用机械约束方法。我们认为,性别是划定边界过程中的一个关键维度,它被用来进行区分和划分等级,以便在强制和对话之间的连续统一体中定义和证明处理精神危机的不同方法。分析确定了划分性别界限的两个主要方面:性别间界限(将男性和女性的二元区分与更具强制性或关系对话式的危机处理方法重叠)和性别内界限(区分不同的男性和女性并对其进行分级),将较少强制性的取向与泯灭的男性气质联系起来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
"Too soft for real psychiatry"? Gendered boundary-making between coercion and dialog in Italian wards.

Psychiatric practice has always entailed a coercive dimension, visible not only in its formal expressions (e.g. compulsory treatment) but in many informal and implicit forms. In fact, contemporary psychiatric practices are characterized by an interplay of coercion and dialog to be interpreted not as binary categories but as extremes of a spectrum. Within this perspective, it becomes crucial to draw boundaries attributing meaning to professional identities and practices in psychiatric work. This is particularly relevant in acute wards: to explore this issue, we selected two cases according to a most-different-cases design, one ward with a mechanical-restraint approach compared to one with no-mechanical-restraint. We argue that gender, mobilized to performatively draw distinctions and hierarchies in order to define and justify different approaches to psychiatric crises along the continuum between coercion and dialog, is a key dimension in the boundary-making process. The analysis identifies two main dimensions of drawing gendered boundaries: inter-gender boundaries (overlapping the binary distinction between masculinity and femininity with a more coercive or relational-dialogic approach to crisis) and intra-gender boundaries (distinguishing and ranking of different masculinities and femininities), associating a less coercive orientation with a devirilized masculinity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health
Health Multiple-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
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.
期刊最新文献
As if I was a spacecraft returning to Earth's atmosphere. Expanding insights into illness narratives and childhood cancer through evocative autoethnography. The practice of information appraisal: An ethnographic study of a health information intervention. Is Covid-19 "vaccine uptake" in postsecondary education a "problem"? A critical policy inquiry. Visualising, navigating and making time: The use of a digital solution in treatment and rehabilitation from low back pain. Sensing pain: Embodied knowledge in endometriosis.
×
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