丧亲之痛和悲伤的意义

Q3 Nursing
C. Valentine
{"title":"丧亲之痛和悲伤的意义","authors":"C. Valentine","doi":"10.1080/02682621.2019.1587850","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The focus on meaning-making in loss (Neimeyer, 2001) reflects increasing use of qualitative methods to study how individuals and groups experience bereavement. Adopting a relativist, constructivist ontology, a qualitative lens foregrounds the variety of ways people interpret and find meaning within the everyday flow of events, speech and behaviour, or discursive activity, through which we define and structure our social reality (Berger & Luckman, 1967). In analysing qualitative data we come to appreciate the complex relationship between individual and social processes, the human capacity for agency in difficult situations, and how we act on the basis of meaning (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 9). This approach represents a shift from meaning-making based on internal, psychological compulsion to meaning as socially and culturally shaped. The analytic task then becomes one of discovering the ‘strange’ in the familiar to gain an appreciation of how ‘common sense’ experiences are not as self-evident as they may seem, but have been shaped by cultural meaning systems. While providing a methodological lens to study how individuals engage with specific types of loss, meaningmaking in bereavement is also a topic of investigation, which has been theorised as central to grieving (Neimeyer 2001; Park, 2010). For example, Niemeyer’s ‘meaningreconstruction’, or the attempt to reaffirm a world of meaning threatened by loss, includes sense-making, benefit finding and identity change (Gillies & Neimeyer, 2006). Park’s meaning-making model describes how meaning is lost, searched for and found, the outcome being meanings made. This model has sought to bridge the gap between a more ‘global sense of meaning’ in life and a ‘situational sense of meaning’ disrupted by loss. Further, given meaningmaking’s socio-cultural shaping, its study in diverse contexts can illuminate different cultural responses to contemporary societal conditions and the issues these raise for the experience of death and loss. Yet, the focus on cultural diversity both within and between cultures has been limited, definitions of meaning-making in bereavement tending to uncritically assume mainstream western perspectives. Of the relatively few studies showing cultural sensitivity I review three, which capture the complex interplay of situational and global, micro and macro, individual and cultural dimensions to extend our understanding of meaning-making in loss.","PeriodicalId":44115,"journal":{"name":"Bereavement Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02682621.2019.1587850","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Meaning-making in bereavement and grief\",\"authors\":\"C. Valentine\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02682621.2019.1587850\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The focus on meaning-making in loss (Neimeyer, 2001) reflects increasing use of qualitative methods to study how individuals and groups experience bereavement. Adopting a relativist, constructivist ontology, a qualitative lens foregrounds the variety of ways people interpret and find meaning within the everyday flow of events, speech and behaviour, or discursive activity, through which we define and structure our social reality (Berger & Luckman, 1967). In analysing qualitative data we come to appreciate the complex relationship between individual and social processes, the human capacity for agency in difficult situations, and how we act on the basis of meaning (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 9). This approach represents a shift from meaning-making based on internal, psychological compulsion to meaning as socially and culturally shaped. The analytic task then becomes one of discovering the ‘strange’ in the familiar to gain an appreciation of how ‘common sense’ experiences are not as self-evident as they may seem, but have been shaped by cultural meaning systems. While providing a methodological lens to study how individuals engage with specific types of loss, meaningmaking in bereavement is also a topic of investigation, which has been theorised as central to grieving (Neimeyer 2001; Park, 2010). For example, Niemeyer’s ‘meaningreconstruction’, or the attempt to reaffirm a world of meaning threatened by loss, includes sense-making, benefit finding and identity change (Gillies & Neimeyer, 2006). Park’s meaning-making model describes how meaning is lost, searched for and found, the outcome being meanings made. This model has sought to bridge the gap between a more ‘global sense of meaning’ in life and a ‘situational sense of meaning’ disrupted by loss. Further, given meaningmaking’s socio-cultural shaping, its study in diverse contexts can illuminate different cultural responses to contemporary societal conditions and the issues these raise for the experience of death and loss. Yet, the focus on cultural diversity both within and between cultures has been limited, definitions of meaning-making in bereavement tending to uncritically assume mainstream western perspectives. Of the relatively few studies showing cultural sensitivity I review three, which capture the complex interplay of situational and global, micro and macro, individual and cultural dimensions to extend our understanding of meaning-making in loss.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44115,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bereavement Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02682621.2019.1587850\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bereavement Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02682621.2019.1587850\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Nursing\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bereavement Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02682621.2019.1587850","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

对损失意义创造的关注(Neimeyer,2001)反映出越来越多地使用定性方法来研究个人和群体如何经历丧亲之痛。采用相对主义、建构主义本体论,定性镜头突出了人们在日常事件、言论和行为或话语活动中解释和寻找意义的各种方式,我们通过这些方式来定义和构建我们的社会现实(Berger&Luckman,1967)。在分析定性数据时,我们开始理解个人和社会过程之间的复杂关系,人类在困难情况下的代理能力,以及我们如何根据意义行事(Strauss&Corbin,1998,第9页)。这种方法代表着从基于内在心理强迫的意义创造向社会和文化塑造的意义的转变。然后,分析任务变成了在熟悉的事物中发现“奇怪的”,以了解“常识”体验如何不是看似不言自明的,而是由文化意义系统塑造的。虽然为研究个人如何应对特定类型的损失提供了一个方法论视角,但丧亲之痛的意义也是一个调查主题,这被认为是悲伤的核心(Neimeyer 2001;帕克,2010年)。例如,尼迈耶的“意义重建”,或试图重申一个受到损失威胁的意义世界,包括意义创造、利益发现和身份改变(Gillies&Neimeyer,2006)。朴的意义生成模型描述了意义是如何丢失、寻找和找到的,结果是意义的生成。该模型试图弥合生活中更“全球意义感”和因损失而中断的“情境意义感”之间的差距。此外,考虑到意义制造的社会文化塑造,它在不同背景下的研究可以阐明对当代社会条件的不同文化反应,以及这些反应引发的死亡和损失体验问题。然而,对文化内部和文化之间文化多样性的关注是有限的,丧亲之痛中意义的定义往往不加批判地采用西方主流观点。在相对较少的显示文化敏感性的研究中,我回顾了三项,它们捕捉了情境和全球、微观和宏观、个人和文化维度的复杂相互作用,以扩展我们对损失中意义创造的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Meaning-making in bereavement and grief
The focus on meaning-making in loss (Neimeyer, 2001) reflects increasing use of qualitative methods to study how individuals and groups experience bereavement. Adopting a relativist, constructivist ontology, a qualitative lens foregrounds the variety of ways people interpret and find meaning within the everyday flow of events, speech and behaviour, or discursive activity, through which we define and structure our social reality (Berger & Luckman, 1967). In analysing qualitative data we come to appreciate the complex relationship between individual and social processes, the human capacity for agency in difficult situations, and how we act on the basis of meaning (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 9). This approach represents a shift from meaning-making based on internal, psychological compulsion to meaning as socially and culturally shaped. The analytic task then becomes one of discovering the ‘strange’ in the familiar to gain an appreciation of how ‘common sense’ experiences are not as self-evident as they may seem, but have been shaped by cultural meaning systems. While providing a methodological lens to study how individuals engage with specific types of loss, meaningmaking in bereavement is also a topic of investigation, which has been theorised as central to grieving (Neimeyer 2001; Park, 2010). For example, Niemeyer’s ‘meaningreconstruction’, or the attempt to reaffirm a world of meaning threatened by loss, includes sense-making, benefit finding and identity change (Gillies & Neimeyer, 2006). Park’s meaning-making model describes how meaning is lost, searched for and found, the outcome being meanings made. This model has sought to bridge the gap between a more ‘global sense of meaning’ in life and a ‘situational sense of meaning’ disrupted by loss. Further, given meaningmaking’s socio-cultural shaping, its study in diverse contexts can illuminate different cultural responses to contemporary societal conditions and the issues these raise for the experience of death and loss. Yet, the focus on cultural diversity both within and between cultures has been limited, definitions of meaning-making in bereavement tending to uncritically assume mainstream western perspectives. Of the relatively few studies showing cultural sensitivity I review three, which capture the complex interplay of situational and global, micro and macro, individual and cultural dimensions to extend our understanding of meaning-making in loss.
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
Bereavement Care
Bereavement Care SOCIAL WORK-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信