Contesting stigma and contested emotions: Personal experience and public perception of specific phobias

Contesting stigma and contested emotions: Personal experience and public perception of specific phobias
复制标题

DOI:
10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.04.030
复制
发表时间:
2005-11-01
影响因子:
5.4
通讯作者:
Davidson, J
Davidson, J
中科院分区:
医学2区
文献类型:
--
作者:
Davidson, J

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

本文通过对英国国家恐惧症协会成员的采访,探讨了特定恐惧症的争议性对他们的经历和感知的影响。与慢性疲劳综合症等其他慢性和有争议的疾病一样,恐惧症在医务人员和非专业人群中都被污名化并受到广泛的评判态度。然而,相比之下,恐惧经历的特征很少是难以描述症状和获得诊断:对特定物体的核心恐惧反应和回避通常是明显的和毫无争议的。关键的区别在于,恐惧症是由被认为是非理性和无关紧要的情绪和行为构成的,而正是它们(被感知到的)重要性引起了质疑和质疑。换句话说,这有什么关系,谁在乎你是否碰巧害怕蛇呢?尽可能使用恐惧症患者自己的语言,本文探讨了恐惧情绪被构建为有争议的过程,并检查了管理这些情绪的经验和感知的恐惧手段。调查显示,许多受访者足智多谋,而且有抵抗力,不断地重新协商自己的定位,认为自己不理性、无能、情感薄弱。(c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd版权所有。
This paper draws on interviews with members of the United Kingdom National Phobics Society to explore the implications of the contested nature of specific phobias for their experience and perception. In common with other chronic and contested conditions such as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, phobias are stigmatised and subjected to widespread judgmental attitudes in both medical and lay populations. In contrast, however, phobic experience is rarely characterised by difficulty in describing symptoms and obtaining a diagnosis: core fearful reaction to and avoidance of particular objects is usually obvious and uncontested. The crucial difference is that phobias are constituted by emotions and behaviours considered irrational and inconsequential, and it is their (perceived absence of) significance that raises questions and eyebrows. In other words, what does it matter and who cares if you happen to be scared of snakes? Using phobics' own words as far as possible, the paper explores the processes through which phobic emotions are constructed as contested, and examines phobic means of managing experience and perception of these emotions. It reveals that many respondents are resourceful and resistant, continually renegotiating their positioning as irrational, incapable and emotionally weak. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.