Autor/es
Descripción
ver mas
Colaborador
Stolkiner, Alicia
Carrasco Madariaga, Jimena
Materias
Idioma
spa
Extent
158 p.
Derechos
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
Formato
application/pdf
Identificador
Cobertura
1019951
Rosario (inhabited place)
2016-2018
Abstract
This thesis is oriented to ask how, by means of what mechanisms, techniques, practices, discourses, the monovalent hospital sets the ways in which the life of a particular group of the population that is hospitalized for mental health reasons. It also asks how the forms of government in the institutional space are articulated with forms of government that operate outside the confinement, that is, as an assemblage of diverse elements that converge in the search for concrete results, in a common strategy: to govern individuals, or in other words, to modulate the relationship between those who govern and those who are governed.
I analyze the modalities in which the government of madness is exercised, defining the psychiatric hospital as a technology as it is directed to specific portions of the population, characterized by being in situations of risk to their lives, their health, and may also represent a risk to others. To this end, I have taken as analytical dimensions the rationalities under which the exercise of government is framed, the voices of authority that are erected, as well as the subjectivities it produces.
In this sense, the work is part of the field of governmentality studies interested in analyzing the forms of governing subjects. It does so from a critical ethnographic perspective and with the use of techniques of construction-collection of information that are characteristic of it, insofar as it proposes to account for the heterogeneity and multiplicity of governmental practices by analyzing them in their deployment in a particular time and context.
The units of analysis constructed are those that allow an approach to the rationalities and technologies deployed in the hospital space that are expressed in a varied series of discursive and non-discursive practices that reveal how madness is governed in the hospital: through the configuration of suffering as risk and the analysis of the practices of care and assistance, control and violence (chapter 4), in the configuration of madness as illness and the analysis of diagnostic and classification practices (chapter 5), in the construction of madness as disorder and the analysis of the modalities of regulation of the circulation through space and the use of time (chapter 6), in the configuration of madness as danger and the ways in which hospital and penal devices intersect today (chapter 7).
The contribution of the governmentality approach is highlighted insofar as it allows analyzing the heterogeneous set of discursive and non-discursive practices that articulate the government of madness in the psychiatric hospital as part of a solid and coherent assemblage with the objective entrusted to it: to conduct the conducts of the population requiring mental health care. On the other hand, and in consonance with this, it offers contributions referred to the contemporary modulations of the subjects of government in these institutions.
I analyze the modalities in which the government of madness is exercised, defining the psychiatric hospital as a technology as it is directed to specific portions of the population, characterized by being in situations of risk to their lives, their health, and may also represent a risk to others. To this end, I have taken as analytical dimensions the rationalities under which the exercise of government is framed, the voices of authority that are erected, as well as the subjectivities it produces.
In this sense, the work is part of the field of governmentality studies interested in analyzing the forms of governing subjects. It does so from a critical ethnographic perspective and with the use of techniques of construction-collection of information that are characteristic of it, insofar as it proposes to account for the heterogeneity and multiplicity of governmental practices by analyzing them in their deployment in a particular time and context.
The units of analysis constructed are those that allow an approach to the rationalities and technologies deployed in the hospital space that are expressed in a varied series of discursive and non-discursive practices that reveal how madness is governed in the hospital: through the configuration of suffering as risk and the analysis of the practices of care and assistance, control and violence (chapter 4), in the configuration of madness as illness and the analysis of diagnostic and classification practices (chapter 5), in the construction of madness as disorder and the analysis of the modalities of regulation of the circulation through space and the use of time (chapter 6), in the configuration of madness as danger and the ways in which hospital and penal devices intersect today (chapter 7).
The contribution of the governmentality approach is highlighted insofar as it allows analyzing the heterogeneous set of discursive and non-discursive practices that articulate the government of madness in the psychiatric hospital as part of a solid and coherent assemblage with the objective entrusted to it: to conduct the conducts of the population requiring mental health care. On the other hand, and in consonance with this, it offers contributions referred to the contemporary modulations of the subjects of government in these institutions.
Título obtenido
Doctora de la Universidad de Buenos Aires en Ciencias Sociales
Institución otorgante
Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales