胎盘社会伦理:反抗认识论的设计

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 N/A PHILOSOPHY Pluralist Pub Date : 2022-02-26 DOI:10.5406/19446489.17.1.07
Celia T. Bardwell-Jones
{"title":"胎盘社会伦理:反抗认识论的设计","authors":"Celia T. Bardwell-Jones","doi":"10.5406/19446489.17.1.07","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"i thank dr. vink for her impressive analysis of design and introducing me to another method in thinking about institutional organization. I also am deeply grateful for Dr. Vink’s engagement with my work on “Placental Ethics: Addressing Colonial Legacies and Imagining Culturally Safe Responses to Health Care in Hawai̒ i” (Bardwell-Jones) and responding to the call to re-envision alternative design models in guiding institutional operations that seek community engagement. Responding to this paper helped me to think further about the work I began in that article. Dr. Vink’s project carefully reflects on her experience working with communities in Canada on behalf of hospital administration. Seeking input from differently situated communities, she reflects on moments of perplexity and resistance from the community members. Working with members from an Indigenous community, she found that dominant design models “can contribute to the reproduction of coloniality and modernity.” Working with diverse communities in Toronto, she acknowledged the “hypocrisy” of participation when dominant design models failed to acknowledge the ongoing process of local design work within the community. It appears that dominant design within hospital administration understands care as best done by authority. Community members are reduced to data. The cognitive work is done by the experts, who are situated outside the community. There are risks that dominant design models, despite the good intentions motivating the inquiry, may perpetrate unconscious structural gaslighting. Drawing upon Elena Ruiz’s notion of settler epistemic economies that generate structural violence, Nora Berenstain identifies the nature of structural gaslighting as","PeriodicalId":42609,"journal":{"name":"Pluralist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Placental Social Ethics: Designing for Epistemologies of Resistance\",\"authors\":\"Celia T. Bardwell-Jones\",\"doi\":\"10.5406/19446489.17.1.07\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"i thank dr. vink for her impressive analysis of design and introducing me to another method in thinking about institutional organization. I also am deeply grateful for Dr. Vink’s engagement with my work on “Placental Ethics: Addressing Colonial Legacies and Imagining Culturally Safe Responses to Health Care in Hawai̒ i” (Bardwell-Jones) and responding to the call to re-envision alternative design models in guiding institutional operations that seek community engagement. Responding to this paper helped me to think further about the work I began in that article. Dr. Vink’s project carefully reflects on her experience working with communities in Canada on behalf of hospital administration. Seeking input from differently situated communities, she reflects on moments of perplexity and resistance from the community members. Working with members from an Indigenous community, she found that dominant design models “can contribute to the reproduction of coloniality and modernity.” Working with diverse communities in Toronto, she acknowledged the “hypocrisy” of participation when dominant design models failed to acknowledge the ongoing process of local design work within the community. It appears that dominant design within hospital administration understands care as best done by authority. Community members are reduced to data. The cognitive work is done by the experts, who are situated outside the community. There are risks that dominant design models, despite the good intentions motivating the inquiry, may perpetrate unconscious structural gaslighting. Drawing upon Elena Ruiz’s notion of settler epistemic economies that generate structural violence, Nora Berenstain identifies the nature of structural gaslighting as\",\"PeriodicalId\":42609,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pluralist\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pluralist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5406/19446489.17.1.07\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"N/A\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pluralist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5406/19446489.17.1.07","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我感谢vink博士对设计的深刻分析,并向我介绍了思考机构组织的另一种方法。我也非常感谢Vink博士参与我的“胎盘伦理:解决夏威夷殖民遗产和想象对医疗保健的文化安全反应”(Bardwell Jones)的工作,并响应重新设想替代设计模式的呼吁,指导寻求社区参与的机构运作。对这篇论文的回应帮助我进一步思考我在那篇文章中开始的工作。Vink医生的项目仔细反思了她代表医院管理部门与加拿大社区合作的经验。在寻求不同社区的意见时,她反思了社区成员的困惑和抵抗。在与土著社区的成员合作时,她发现主导设计模式“有助于殖民主义和现代性的再现”。在与多伦多的不同社区合作时,当主导设计模式未能承认社区内当地设计工作的持续过程时,她承认参与的“虚伪”。看来,医院管理部门的主导设计将护理理解为最好由权威机构完成。社区成员被简化为数据。认知工作是由位于社区之外的专家完成的。尽管调查动机良好,但主流设计模型可能会造成无意识的结构煤气照明,这是有风险的。根据Elena Ruiz关于产生结构性暴力的定居者认识经济的概念,Nora Berenstain将结构性煤气灯的性质确定为
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
Placental Social Ethics: Designing for Epistemologies of Resistance
i thank dr. vink for her impressive analysis of design and introducing me to another method in thinking about institutional organization. I also am deeply grateful for Dr. Vink’s engagement with my work on “Placental Ethics: Addressing Colonial Legacies and Imagining Culturally Safe Responses to Health Care in Hawai̒ i” (Bardwell-Jones) and responding to the call to re-envision alternative design models in guiding institutional operations that seek community engagement. Responding to this paper helped me to think further about the work I began in that article. Dr. Vink’s project carefully reflects on her experience working with communities in Canada on behalf of hospital administration. Seeking input from differently situated communities, she reflects on moments of perplexity and resistance from the community members. Working with members from an Indigenous community, she found that dominant design models “can contribute to the reproduction of coloniality and modernity.” Working with diverse communities in Toronto, she acknowledged the “hypocrisy” of participation when dominant design models failed to acknowledge the ongoing process of local design work within the community. It appears that dominant design within hospital administration understands care as best done by authority. Community members are reduced to data. The cognitive work is done by the experts, who are situated outside the community. There are risks that dominant design models, despite the good intentions motivating the inquiry, may perpetrate unconscious structural gaslighting. Drawing upon Elena Ruiz’s notion of settler epistemic economies that generate structural violence, Nora Berenstain identifies the nature of structural gaslighting as
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
Pluralist
Pluralist PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
期刊最新文献
Casting a Vote for Subordination Using a Slur Affective Foundation of Society in Nietzsche's Philosophy Philosophy and the Modern African American Freedom Struggle: A Freedom Gaze The Dramatization of Absolute Idealism: Gabriel Marcel and F. H. Bradley Collective Regret and Guilt and Heroic Agency: A Pro-Existential Approach
×
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