从脑部 "疤痕 "到 "蝙蝠屎一样的疯狂":就性暴力话语的疯狂进行谈判

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL Biosocieties Pub Date : 2024-07-09 DOI:10.1057/s41292-024-00334-1
Emma Yapp
{"title":"从脑部 \"疤痕 \"到 \"蝙蝠屎一样的疯狂\":就性暴力话语的疯狂进行谈判","authors":"Emma Yapp","doi":"10.1057/s41292-024-00334-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article analyses how people who identify with psychiatric diagnoses in England and Wales make sense of and talk about their experiences of sexual violence. I examine how interview participants engaged with the hegemonic trauma discourse, as well as the consequences of this for meaning-making, affective pain, and the feminist imperative to ‘speak out’. The hegemonic trauma discourse is characterised by leaving a psychological ‘scar’; is premised on a sudden interruption to a ‘good life’; and is considered pathologically unspeakable without intervention. This discourse was both validating and affectively painful for participants, and interventions targeting dissociation were helpful for assuaging distress. However, it was additionally normative and exclusionary, and did not fulfil the political promise of ‘speaking out’, as all participants faced myriad socio-political denial.</p>","PeriodicalId":46976,"journal":{"name":"Biosocieties","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From brain “scar” to “bat shit crazy”: negotiating the madness of sexual violence discourse\",\"authors\":\"Emma Yapp\",\"doi\":\"10.1057/s41292-024-00334-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This article analyses how people who identify with psychiatric diagnoses in England and Wales make sense of and talk about their experiences of sexual violence. I examine how interview participants engaged with the hegemonic trauma discourse, as well as the consequences of this for meaning-making, affective pain, and the feminist imperative to ‘speak out’. The hegemonic trauma discourse is characterised by leaving a psychological ‘scar’; is premised on a sudden interruption to a ‘good life’; and is considered pathologically unspeakable without intervention. This discourse was both validating and affectively painful for participants, and interventions targeting dissociation were helpful for assuaging distress. However, it was additionally normative and exclusionary, and did not fulfil the political promise of ‘speaking out’, as all participants faced myriad socio-political denial.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46976,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biosocieties\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biosocieties\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-024-00334-1\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biosocieties","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-024-00334-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文分析了在英格兰和威尔士被诊断为精神病的人是如何理解和谈论他们的性暴力经历的。我研究了访谈参与者是如何参与霸权创伤话语的,以及这种话语对意义建构、情感痛苦和女权主义者 "说出来 "的必要性所产生的后果。霸权创伤话语的特点是留下心理 "伤疤";以 "美好生活 "的突然中断为前提;并被认为在没有干预的情况下是不可言说的。对参与者来说,这种话语既是有效的,也是痛苦的,针对解离的干预措施有助于缓解痛苦。然而,它还具有规范性和排斥性,并没有实现 "说出真相 "的政治承诺,因为所有参与者都面临着无数的社会政治否定。
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
From brain “scar” to “bat shit crazy”: negotiating the madness of sexual violence discourse

This article analyses how people who identify with psychiatric diagnoses in England and Wales make sense of and talk about their experiences of sexual violence. I examine how interview participants engaged with the hegemonic trauma discourse, as well as the consequences of this for meaning-making, affective pain, and the feminist imperative to ‘speak out’. The hegemonic trauma discourse is characterised by leaving a psychological ‘scar’; is premised on a sudden interruption to a ‘good life’; and is considered pathologically unspeakable without intervention. This discourse was both validating and affectively painful for participants, and interventions targeting dissociation were helpful for assuaging distress. However, it was additionally normative and exclusionary, and did not fulfil the political promise of ‘speaking out’, as all participants faced myriad socio-political denial.

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
Biosocieties
Biosocieties SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
6.20%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: BioSocieties is committed to the scholarly exploration of the crucial social, ethical and policy implications of developments in the life sciences and biomedicine. These developments are increasing our ability to control our own biology; enabling us to create novel life forms; changing our ideas of ‘normality’ and ‘abnormality’; transforming our understanding of personal identity, family relations, ancestry and ‘race’; altering our social and personal expectations and responsibilities; reshaping global economic opportunities and inequalities; creating new global security challenges; and generating new social, ethical, legal and regulatory dilemmas. To address these dilemmas requires us to break out from narrow disciplinary boundaries within the social sciences and humanities, and between these disciplines and the natural sciences, and to develop new ways of thinking about the relations between biology and sociality and between the life sciences and society. BioSocieties provides a crucial forum where the most rigorous social research and critical analysis of these issues can intersect with the work of leading scientists, social researchers, clinicians, regulators and other stakeholders. BioSocieties defines the key intellectual issues at the science-society interface, and offers pathways to the resolution of the critical local, national and global socio-political challenges that arise from scientific and biomedical advances. As the first journal of its kind, BioSocieties publishes scholarship across the social science disciplines, and represents a lively and balanced array of perspectives on controversial issues. In its inaugural year BioSocieties demonstrated the constructive potential of interdisciplinary dialogue and debate across the social and natural sciences. We are becoming the journal of choice not only for social scientists, but also for life scientists interested in the larger social, ethical and policy implications of their work. The journal is international in scope, spanning research and developments in all corners of the globe. BioSocieties is published quarterly, with occasional themed issues that highlight some of the critical questions and problematics of modern biotechnologies. Articles, response pieces, review essays, and self-standing editorial pieces by social and life scientists form a regular part of the journal.
期刊最新文献
‘Our biology is listening’: biomarkers as molecular vestiges of early life and the production of positive childhood experiences in behavioral epigenetics Anticipating and suspending: the chronopolitics of cryopreservation From brain “scar” to “bat shit crazy”: negotiating the madness of sexual violence discourse What is the cure for absolute infertility? Biomedicalisation and routinisation of surrogacy and uterus transplantation in Nordic medical journals The politics of suspension suspended: the curious case of a cryopreserved cell product
×
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