ELISA BELLEZZA
The discourse of normal and pathological through us. What has this to do? Addressed some issues. We say in principle that the concepts of normal and pathological are linked closely to the activity of the doctor, then see what it says about psychoanalysis.
"Typically comes not from any apprehension of the average balance or conceived in the body. Typically appears as a misnomer and a concept merely refers to a detached evaluative status of all biological reference. "At the same time which states as a value, its contractor, the abnormal, is rejected as a negative value. Thus normal weight has a strong prescriptive "ought."
"The concept of normality is an invention of modernity, which is established as a category that governs the eyes of doctors, educators and criminologists from the nineteenth century. But it is a category that is built from its negation, because it synthesizes its origin is not normal, but the abnormality, which confirms the very membership of the One, to the Same.
One category invented to confirm itself and install the control, remove, destroy, edit, censor, moralizing, tame anything exceeding its own limit, all the Other. "
This category becomes the measure of the world, qualifying and productive producing subjectivities of bodies. Normal, thought from statistical criteria in relation to the concept of the average man, is taken as "given" the law natural. However, for that matter, from ordinary people is not spoken, it really forbidden to talk of the rule, not of his transgression. We reached a point where normal is blurred ("Every healthy person is a patient who ignored"). Or, "Typically what can be assumed, for obvious, known to all, and therefore naturalized. Therefore produces no normal interpellation, not disturbed, no worries, as its counterpart, the abnormal challenges, disrupts, disturbs produce fears, imbalance, uncertainty. The transgression, deviance, abnormality are and have been objects of measurement, limit setting, monitoring, correction, removal of insulation. (...)
identify, classify, find the margin, divide, separate, select, diagnose, predict, forecast, prescribe treatment, all supported operations performed in the asymmetry of power between an individual classifier and an object subject to classification, are embodied respectively in the professionals, experts, and the disabled, the patient and sometimes family. (...) The subject is no longer such, but only one object, lose your name will be called by its deficit (...) "Practice desubjectivating which removed the patient to be objective with the disease, and threatens to wipe out the person of the physician, replacing it with the technical apparatus of diagnosis, in an effort to scientism. What causes
delivering a diagnosis made to believe that appointment of a person? Here the line between subjectivity and objectivation own language. The illusion of suturing the devastation causes subjective phenomena involved, at least, alienation to a word. That force standardization
is held through two strategies. On the one hand, the constitution of the concept of "abnormal", essentially a logic of opposites, so that normality is claimed, even inseparable. However, working with different laws, so that the abnormal is less biased than different. How we see it so differently?
On the other hand, the medicalization of society.
live in an age where there seems to be a pill for every ailment. You probably know someone or we ourselves, in relation to analgesics, decongestants, antihistamines, pills to control blood pressure, for a heart problem, antibiotics, birth control pills, pills for heartburn, sleeping pills, pills to control the level of anxiety, etc.
however, and you do not make a profound study to realize, we live daily life with a degree of stress, dissatisfaction, irritability and malaise that seems to be increasing in proportion to the feeling that time is accelerating. Effect of exacerbation of the global capitalist system that drives us to the cement, which dominates the law of the jungle.
However, the so-called medicalization of everyday life does not come from one day to the other, but that has to do with a journey where medicine, rather, the medical model is imposed. "The use of the term" medicalization "shows the influence of medicine in almost all aspects of daily life, and connotes a critical appreciation for the negative effects, paradoxical or undesirable, such a phenomenon. In fact, medicine has always exerted a normalizing power or social control, primarily by the concepts of health and illness, normal and abnormal, setting up a rival normative order of religion and law, which has been increasing since the modern with the achievement of a genuine scientific status, professional and political. But another story begins with the dominant health care model after the Second World War, when the medicalization becomes the equivalent of a "culture of health = good," clearly visible in postmodern society. "Galende
As stated, the medicalization of society is a symptom of the progress of scientific medicine and the new kind of subjectivity that produces fragmented. Expression of power that establishes a so-called proportional relation between consumption and production of health, medical concepts proposed as criteria of morality (in terms of responsible behavior and lifestyle) and stealing the body. Thus, the medical institution with its normative and normalizing says what is right and what kinds está mal en términos de salud y enfermedad, normal y patológico. Esto también se sostiene a partir de la referida asimetría de poder del médico respecto al enfermo.
La medicalización no solo se relaciona con clasificar lo desviado, lo enfermo, y luego corregirlo, medicarlo, “enpastillarlo”; sino, que más profundamente se medicaliza la vida a través del lenguaje y la manera en que éste organiza la experiencia y construye el mundo. Aparecen las metáforas médicas y entre ellas, configurando el paradigma médico-político, la de sociedad como cuerpo enfermo. Si, viendo la situación caótica de la sociedad, pensamos por un momento “está enferma”, esto implies that we may diagnose and then treat it. "The argument medicalized paradigm of political code (or politicized medical code) provides as follows: The country (society) is sick (or sick). The diagnosis (impeachment) is such a disease. Treatment (recipe) consisting of these measures. (...) There are parallels between the government or body system and society, so that in modernity somatocracia is performed in order to match the doctor and politician, medicine, politics and politics as medicine. We are all patients of the policy, while it requires us or formulating standards, but as Nietzsche said, there is no health as such, normal health, but health of everyone. "
This coincides with the position of psychoanalysis, where therapy is case by case and the question is about the suffering and welfare of the subject may a time and a culture. Each of the subjects. Psychoanalysis emphasizes the gap that opens between the pathological and natural, that is the psyche.
So what to do with those conditions of speech (normal and pathological) that produce subject positions? Denature the standard and nature of exclusion is a key operation, which comes into play our ability to reflect and critique. Reflection on the collective level; clinical reflection on practice, and his statements on the patient.
From psychoanalysis we can say that the individual pre-existing social norms are necessary for life in society. However, these laws and rules may generate more or less discomfort. Do not forget that Freud, in "Civilization and Its Discontents" refers to the society of 1900, where it is immersed. Bet planning on setting up the possibility of other modes of relationship, bond, without prejudice to the wolf side of human beings. Not forget that Freud himself considered psychoanalysis as a force for change in society. With Freud we affirm the discontents of civilization, yet culture question the fact discomfort.
Psychoanalysis does not promise happiness, nor without contradiction or conflict. The analytical pretense is not related to a classification of mental disease, nor with the over-medication which involves a subjective silencing. The differential diagnosis does not name transfer and subjectivities. Analytical listening listening (and again on this.) It is there a subject, not a sphere, but split. Subject of the unconscious, unlike the Cartesian subject, of consciousness, which is a unit, a concept that comes from the philosophy and maintains a Christian. If the logic of normal and pathological talk of the Same and the Other. Here we say that the same is in itself diverse, as it is the other.
In psychoanalysis we talk about different ways of inhabiting the world. Negotiations, hopefully, with that civilization and its discontents. Opens the ear to the ability to surprise and change. The unexpected, the unexpected.
Words, words and more words. Eye, the words body and the bodies are also words. It is curious, almost paradoxical that reading without a human being with no ego entity, as a kind of completeness, the analysis also holds the duality of body / soul. In this sense, speaking of psychosomatic is redundant. Saying "entanglement" not applicable, subject and body are not separable. Nor is there subjectivity. But countless, infinite, ineffable subjectivity. How
normativizante discourse inhabits the mental health institutions? Our point of view varies greatly we position ourselves in relation to the person who approaches: "We will heal," "Let's lock him up" or "We'll handle it." The latter creating a space where there may be a singularity. In this dichotomous logic
always "crazy" is another. This has to do with a process of psychic constitution. We need to differentiate from the other to exist. This does not mean we have to incorporate it as another enemy, threatening or correct. Although today we see the other as a competitor, in a kind of general paranoia. How to listen to the other? How, beyond taking personal positions, continue to be willing to argue the difference, not trying to ignore it? Building along with other support space of subjectivity.
And beyond the everyday, but just because that is anchored, the discourse of psychoanalysis has to do with it. With: "Psychoanalysis hear" I meant it, listening to something escapes us after making fleeting appearances. This at the clinic. And expanding the picture have to do with the appropriation of the word, where we see different dialects of each group, we demonstrate the use of language subjectivating, making loop.
How do you know like you see red?
Go walking down the street, looking up, looking at each of the countless windows of the buildings and think about each of the people who live there, live, pass. Think that each has a different story, a different body, is wonderful and scary. Unique in the world, is saddled with the deep loneliness forever. But, why go out of our mouth holes these strange forms we call words? Why go to other and ignore the abyss? Start turning over the abyss, start to talk about the abyss. Bibliography
or Colovini, Marit. "The normal and pathological." Notes and lecture notes. In http://clínicayactualidad.blogspot.com April 2008.
or Freud, Sigmund "The malaise of civilization." Amorrortu Ed. Buenos Aires 2004
or Galende, Emiliano "Psychoanalysis and Mental Health." Bs As1990 Paidós Ed
or Mainetti, José Alberto. "The medicalization of life and language." In http://hipócratesyfreud.blogspot.com April 2008.
0 comments:
Post a Comment