Littooij Elsbeth, Widdershoven Guy A M, Leget Carlo J W, Dekker Joost
Amsterdam Rehabilitation Research Center Reade, PO Box 58271, 1040 HG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Medical Humanities, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1089a, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Med Health Care Philos. 2019 Jun;22(2):201-209. doi: 10.1007/s11019-018-9853-y.
Based on our empirical research on global meaning in people with spinal cord injury and people with stroke, we formulated 'inner posture' as a concept in rehabilitation. Inner posture, as we concluded from our empirical data, refers to the way in which people bear what cannot be changed. It helps them to live with their injury. Considering that much has already been written about meaning from a variety of disciplines, the question arises whether the concept of inner posture adds something new to the existing literature, or is just another name for a phenomenon that has already been described before in different terms. In this paper, we aim to investigate this and to clarify our conceptualization, by comparing the concept of inner posture with influential concepts in healthcare literature which seem to be more or less related. In the work of Puchalski regarding spirituality, Pargament regarding religion, Eliott regarding hope and Frankl regarding attitude, we found definitions and descriptions that seemed to come close to the phenomenon we refer to as inner posture. Because these concepts have various theoretical backgrounds, the comparison can help to better understand our concept of inner posture, through a process of dialogue between traditions, following Gadamer's notion of dialogue as fusion of horizons of understanding. We conclude that inner posture differs from the other concepts in several ways. Some of these differences are more fundamental, other are partial. This suggests that we identified a new perspective on a phenomenon partially described earlier. The comparison also inspired us to slightly adjust our definition and to formulate new research questions.
基于我们对脊髓损伤患者和中风患者的全球意义的实证研究，我们将“内在姿态”作为康复中的一个概念。根据我们的实证数据得出的结论，内在姿态指的是人们承受无法改变之事的方式。它帮助他们与伤痛共处。鉴于已经有许多不同学科的文献论述过意义，问题就出现了：内在姿态这一概念是为现有文献增添了新内容，还是仅仅是一个之前已用不同术语描述过的现象的别称。在本文中，我们旨在通过将内在姿态的概念与医疗保健文献中似乎或多或少相关的有影响力的概念进行比较，来研究这一问题并阐明我们的概念。在普查尔斯基关于灵性、帕加门关于宗教、艾略特关于希望以及弗兰克尔关于态度的著作中，我们发现了一些定义和描述，它们似乎与我们所指的内在姿态这一现象相近。由于这些概念有不同的理论背景，通过遵循伽达默尔关于对话即理解视野融合的观念，在不同传统间的对话过程中，这种比较有助于更好地理解我们的内在姿态概念。我们得出结论，内在姿态在几个方面与其他概念不同。其中一些差异更为根本，另一些则是局部的。这表明我们识别出了一个对之前已部分描述过的现象的新视角。这种比较也促使我们对定义稍作调整并提出新的研究问题。
