Suppr超能文献

你的诊断并不能保护你(学术也不能):正视教育和失调。

Your diagnosis will not protect you (and neither will academia): Reckoning with education and Dis-Ease.

机构信息

Independent scholar. Vancouver, Canada.

出版信息

Int J Drug Policy. 2021 Dec;98:103450. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103450. Epub 2021 Sep 14.

Abstract

This article is an autoethnographic exploration of institutionalized responses to uncontrolled substance use informed by medical paradigms. Theoretically, it is situated within a lineage of work in critical drug and Mad studies that challenge assumptions about choice, including - and especially - by interrogating the extent to which choice is an apt conceptual tool for making sense of "addiction." Throughout, I focus on two discrete but analogous events, both of which entailed binging on substances, entering altered states, and being rejected from academic spaces through a lens of biomedicine. My objective in doing so is two-fold: First, I hope to incite what I feel is a long overdue conversation between Mad and critical drug studies in service of theoretical cross-pollination. Second, I wish to outline how codifying people as Mad and addicted can amount to a "cutting out" (Smith, 1978) of relevant extraneous factors that motivate one's deviant actions, including within education institutions whose members research these same identities. I conclude by discussing the implications of this "cutting out" for my and possibly others' academic trajectories.

摘要

这是一篇受医学范式启发,对受管制物质使用的制度化反应进行的自传体探索。从理论上讲,它位于批判药物和疯狂研究领域的一系列工作中,这些工作挑战了关于选择的假设,包括——尤其是——通过质疑选择是否是理解“成瘾”的合适概念工具。在整个过程中,我专注于两个不同但类似的事件,这两个事件都涉及物质狂欢、进入改变状态,并通过生物医学的视角被排斥在学术领域之外。我这样做的目的有两个:首先,我希望引发我认为是疯狂和批判药物研究之间早就应该进行的对话,以促进理论上的交叉授粉。其次,我希望概述将人们定性为疯狂和上瘾如何等同于“切除”(Smith,1978)激励一个人越轨行为的相关无关因素,包括在研究这些相同身份的教育机构中。最后,我讨论了这种“切除”对我和可能其他人的学术轨迹的影响。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验