Institute of Medical Humanities, Durham University, Caedmon Building, Leazes Road, Durham, DH1 1SZ, UK.
Mind in Camden, Barnes House, 9-15 Camden Rd, London, NW1 9LQ, UK.
Cult Med Psychiatry. 2022 Jun;46(2):221-247. doi: 10.1007/s11013-019-09623-y.
Recovery is now widely acknowledged as the dominant approach to the management of mental distress and illness in government, third-sector and some peer-support contexts across the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the Anglophone Global North. Although narrative has long been recognised in practice and in policy as a key "technology of recovery," there has been little critical investigation of how recovery narratives are constituted and mobilised, and with what consequences. This paper offers an interdisciplinary, critical medical humanities analysis of the politics and possibilities of Recovery Narrative, drawing literary theoretical concepts of genre and philosophical approaches to the narrative self into conversation with the critiques of recovery advanced by survivor-researchers, sociologists and mad studies scholars. Our focus is not on the specific stories of individuals, but on the form, function and effects of Recovery Narrative as a highly circumscribed kind of storytelling. We identify the assumptions, lacunae and areas of tension which compel a more critical approach to the way this genre is operationalised in and beyond mental health services, and conclude by reflecting on the possibilities offered by other communicative formats, spaces and practices.
康复现在被广泛认为是管理精神困扰和疾病的主导方法,在英国政府、第三部门和一些同伴支持组织中,以及在英语国家的其他地区,都是如此。尽管在实践和政策中,叙事长期以来一直被认为是一种关键的“康复技术”,但对康复叙事是如何构成和调动的,以及产生了什么后果,几乎没有进行批判性的调查。本文对康复叙事的政治和可能性进行了跨学科的、批判性的医学人文学分析,将文学理论中的体裁概念和哲学中的叙事自我方法与幸存者研究人员、社会学家和疯狂研究学者对康复的批判进行了对话。我们的关注点不是个人的具体故事,而是康复叙事作为一种高度受限的叙事形式的形式、功能和影响。我们确定了一些假设、空白和紧张领域,这些都迫使我们更批判性地看待这种体裁在心理健康服务内外运作的方式,并最后通过反思其他交流形式、空间和实践所提供的可能性来结束讨论。