首页> 外文期刊>Mental health and social inclusion >Bridging vs. bonding: achieving participatory parity in recovery communities
【24h】

Bridging vs. bonding: achieving participatory parity in recovery communities

机译:桥梁与纽带:在恢复社区中实现参与式平等

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Purpose - Mental health professionals have increasingly taken for granted the discourse of social inclusion, and so the purpose of this paper is to highlight two competing visions of community that exist for people with mental illnesses. Design/methodology/approach - Review of literature. Findings - The first vision of community holds to the Durkheimian belief that social integration not only promotes mental health, but also signifies successful adaptation and recovery from a pathological state. The second vision holds to the Foucauldian belief that integration can be a means of social control. What is often overlooked is how these contending paradigms might play out differently in liberal welfare states when compared to social democracies. Originality/value - The author draws from Nancy Fraser's theory of redistribution and recognition to interrogate both positions. How can society achieve universal citizenship and inclusion for people with mental illnesses by only providing surface-level reallocations? How do enclave models detract from efforts to move toward deep restructuring of society? The author recognizes that each vision advocates for social justice, but carries distinct implications for mental health policy and practice.
机译:目的-精神卫生专业人员越来越重视社会包容性讨论,因此,本文的目的是强调存在于精神疾病患者的两种相互竞争的社区愿景。设计/方法/方法-文献综述。调查结果-社区的第一个愿景是坚持涂尔干主义的信念,即社会融合不仅可以促进心理健康,而且可以预示成功的适应和从病理状态中恢复过来。第二种观点坚持了福柯主义的信念,即融合可以成为社会控制的手段。通常被忽视的是,与社会民主国家相比,这些竞争范式在自由福利国家中如何发挥不同的作用。独创性/价值-作者借鉴南希·弗雷泽(Nancy Fraser)的再分配和认可理论,对两个立场进行了质询。仅提供表面层面的重新分配,社会如何才能实现精神疾病患者的普遍公民权和包容性?飞地模型如何减损朝着社会的深层重组的努力?作者认识到每种愿景都主张社会正义,但对精神卫生政策和实践具有不同的含义。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号