Mental and Emotional Health
Mental and Emotional Health
复制标题
心理和情绪健康
DOI：
10.1002/9781444314762.ch15
复制
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Davidson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
H. Parr;J. Davidson
本章对心理健康、心理保健，尤其是心理健康问题患者的情感生活进行了空间解释，试图解释“精神病人”如何从被放逐的非公民转变为情感和具体化的社会代理人。我们汇集了各种地理思想的见解，包括疯狂的历史地理和残疾、慢性病和情感的空间性研究，探索了心理和情感健康之间的联系，并绘制了康复地理的变化图。我们特别关注康复场所的空间变化——从精神病院到社区护理——如何反映心理健康和护理体验方面的概念和物质差异。此外，我们还考虑了一些具体的护理模式，如电话求助热线、虚拟支持小组和新闻通讯，表明这些反映了新的集体空间，这些空间挑战了“无助”患者的概念，同时为个人在集体交流中谈判自己的参与水平留下了空间。贯穿全文，我们敦促研究心理和情感健康问题的学者将患者视为具身的个体，以不同的方式与不同的空间联系在一起，从而实现不同类型的康复。认识到像“康复”这样的术语是复杂和有争议的，为了我们的目的，我们将其定义为“一个人能够在多大程度上恢复一个充实、满意和有意义的生活，无论他们是否继续经历症状”（Bradstreet 2004: 4），在严重疾病之后和期间。我们的立场是，主流社会空间和精神健康患者不需要被认为是“不同的类别”。我们和其他人一样认为，有精神健康问题的人可以被视为试图“积极地重新定位自己[以便]创造可以接受和重视边缘化和边缘化集体身份的空间”（Chouinard 1999: 142）。这个论点
This chapter offers a spatial interpretation of mental health, mental health care, and, more especially, the emotional lives of people with mental health problems, in an attempt to explain how “the mental patient” has transitioned from exiled noncitizen to emotional and embodied social agent. Drawing together insights from various strands of geographical thought, including historical geographies of madness and research on the spatialities of disability, chronic illness, and emotion, we explore linkages between mental and emotional health, and map changes in geographies of recovery. We pay particular attention to how spatial shifts in recovery sites–from asylums to community-based care–reflect conceptual and material differences in how mental health and care is experienced. Further, we consider some specific modalities of care such as telephone help-lines, virtual support groups, and newsletters, suggesting that these reflect new spaces of collectivity that contest notions of “helpless” patients while leaving room for individuals to negotiate their own level of participation in collective exchanges. Throughout, we urge scholars of mental and emotional health issues to consider patients as embodied individuals, connected–emotionally and otherwise–to different spaces in different ways that enable different kinds of recoveries. Recognizing that a term like “recovery” is complex and contentious, we define it for our purposes here as referring to “the extent to which someone can recover a fulfilling, satisfying and meaningful life, whether or not they continue to experience symptoms”(Bradstreet 2004: 4), after and during periods of profound illness.It is our position that mainstream social spaces and mental health patients need not be thought of as “unlike categories.” We join those who argue that people with mental health problems can be seen as trying to “actively re-place themselves [in order] to create spaces in which marginality and marginalized collective identities can be embraced and valued”(Chouinard 1999: 142). This argument neither