患者对精神病话语和权力的抗拒

Matthew S. Johnston, M. Sanscartier, Rhys E Steckle
{"title":"患者对精神病话语和权力的抗拒","authors":"Matthew S. Johnston, M. Sanscartier, Rhys E Steckle","doi":"10.18061/dsq.v42i3-4.7808","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Drawing on 5090 English reviews of 486 psychiatrists working in Canada posted on ratemds.com, this study explores how mental health service users refuse to become subjectivized by psychiatric discourse and power. We interrogate how digital mediums provide mental health service users with a community of critique to regain control over settings where there are many power imbalances. We argue that websites like ratemds.com act as a digital agora in which people are afforded the ability to make the personal political. Through critiquing their own doctors, mental health service users invert the question of what is “wrong” with them to what is “wrong” with agents of the psychiatric apparatus. By regaining a say over their treatment/conditions and insisting doctors are asking the wrong questions to better control their identities, service users refuse to accept the diagnoses, pathologies, and practices imposed on them. We discuss how their transgression in this forum provides new insights into psychiatric resistance that is of special interest to scholars and service users positioned in the Mad Studies movement.","PeriodicalId":55735,"journal":{"name":"Disability Studies Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient Resistance to Psychiatric Discourse and Power\",\"authors\":\"Matthew S. Johnston, M. Sanscartier, Rhys E Steckle\",\"doi\":\"10.18061/dsq.v42i3-4.7808\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Drawing on 5090 English reviews of 486 psychiatrists working in Canada posted on ratemds.com, this study explores how mental health service users refuse to become subjectivized by psychiatric discourse and power. We interrogate how digital mediums provide mental health service users with a community of critique to regain control over settings where there are many power imbalances. We argue that websites like ratemds.com act as a digital agora in which people are afforded the ability to make the personal political. Through critiquing their own doctors, mental health service users invert the question of what is “wrong” with them to what is “wrong” with agents of the psychiatric apparatus. By regaining a say over their treatment/conditions and insisting doctors are asking the wrong questions to better control their identities, service users refuse to accept the diagnoses, pathologies, and practices imposed on them. We discuss how their transgression in this forum provides new insights into psychiatric resistance that is of special interest to scholars and service users positioned in the Mad Studies movement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55735,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Disability Studies Quarterly\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Disability Studies Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v42i3-4.7808\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disability Studies Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v42i3-4.7808","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在ratemds.com上发表的对486名在加拿大工作的精神病医生的5090篇英文评论中,本研究探讨了心理健康服务的使用者如何拒绝被精神病学的话语和权力主体化。我们询问数字媒体如何为心理健康服务用户提供一个批评社区,以重新控制存在许多权力不平衡的环境。我们认为,像ratemds.com这样的网站就像一个数字集市,人们可以在其中进行个人政治活动。通过批评他们自己的医生,心理健康服务的使用者把问题从他们自己的“问题”转向了精神科机构的代理人的“问题”。通过重新获得对治疗/病情的发言权,并坚持认为医生为了更好地控制他们的身份而问了错误的问题,服务使用者拒绝接受强加给他们的诊断、病理和实践。我们在这个论坛上讨论了他们的越轨行为如何为精神抵抗提供了新的见解,这对于处于疯狂研究运动中的学者和服务用户来说是特别感兴趣的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Patient Resistance to Psychiatric Discourse and Power
Drawing on 5090 English reviews of 486 psychiatrists working in Canada posted on ratemds.com, this study explores how mental health service users refuse to become subjectivized by psychiatric discourse and power. We interrogate how digital mediums provide mental health service users with a community of critique to regain control over settings where there are many power imbalances. We argue that websites like ratemds.com act as a digital agora in which people are afforded the ability to make the personal political. Through critiquing their own doctors, mental health service users invert the question of what is “wrong” with them to what is “wrong” with agents of the psychiatric apparatus. By regaining a say over their treatment/conditions and insisting doctors are asking the wrong questions to better control their identities, service users refuse to accept the diagnoses, pathologies, and practices imposed on them. We discuss how their transgression in this forum provides new insights into psychiatric resistance that is of special interest to scholars and service users positioned in the Mad Studies movement.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信