Alimenté par : Claudia (ADFI Alsace)
Cet outil s'appuie sur PubMind
PubMind est une plateforme collaborative de veille scientifique qui permet d'importer des publications depuis PubMed, de suivre leur avancement de lecture, d'en extraire les éléments méthodologiques clés (protocoles, variables, résultats) et de constituer une synthèse structurée afin de faciliter la réalisation de revues de littérature. Entièrement personnalisable, cet outil s'adapte aux thématiques de recherche de ses utilisateurs.
Nous l'avons configuré ici pour centraliser et analyser la littérature scientifique concernant les croyances, les traitements psychologiques, l'étude de la scrupulosité, ainsi que l'impact et la prise en charge des troubles liés aux dérives sectaires.
Dernière synchronisation le 05/06/2026
Cult Med Psychiatry . 2012;36 (1) :51-77
In this article, I examine the interaction between intimacy and psychiatry to explore the ambivalences in the use of pharmaceuticals in psychiatric practice. Of particular interest is how pharmaceuticals come to constitute in multiple ways what pathology is and what form of life needs to be restored, and how psychiatric medications reconfigure the ambivalence of intimacy in post-socialist China. Following the life of Mei, a female psychiatric patient, for two years, I have made a series of discoveries related to medicine and intimacy in China. Specifically, I show that psychopharmaceuticals indicate a diseased body that threatens the intimate bond. They also highlight a socially suffering subject that is in lack of love from the intimate partner who demands the latter's redemption. I discuss how these multiple and contradicting meanings of psychopharmaceuticals and intimacy are socio-historically situated. Thus, while previous research in medical anthropology criticizes pharmaceuticalization for reducing the socio-political life (bios) to a biological body (zoē), I argue that these life forms co-exist in a pharmaceutical "zone of indistinction" (Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1998), in which they constitute and contradict each other. This discussion warns researchers against falling back into the usual orientation of either biomedicine or the social sciences.