首页> 外文期刊>Psychodynamic Practice: Individuals, Groups and Organisations >Beating the barrel of inclusion: Cosmopolitanism through Rabelais and Rancière - A response to John Adlam and Chris Scanlon
【24h】

Beating the barrel of inclusion: Cosmopolitanism through Rabelais and Rancière - A response to John Adlam and Chris Scanlon

机译:打破包容性之桶:通过拉贝莱(Rabelais)和兰西埃(Rancière)走向世界主义-回应约翰·阿德兰(John Adlam)和克里斯·斯坎伦(Chris Scanlon)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

This article is a response to John Adlam and Chris Scanlon's argument about refusal and exclusion in social care services, as explored in this special issue. It builds on the distinction they establish, in reference to the figure of Diogenes, between metropolitan and cosmopolitan models of inclusion, by examining these models through the work of two writers: Rabelais and Rancière. Rabelais, the sixteenth century novelist, compared his writing to the actions of Diogenes when the latter rolled and beat his barrel around the city walls of Corinth, in parodic imitation of the citizens' busy work, preparing for religious warfare. Through this comparison, Rabelais puts into question claims about the justice of colonisation as a strategy to institute ‘the common good’, in the form of an inclusive (Christian) social order. In a move with certain parallels, Jacques Rancière, the contemporary French philosopher, explores the ‘hatred of democracy’ which underpins endeavours to make people equal, through state intervention, notably education. His concept of equality as a starting premise, rather than an end point, allows an exploration of the perverse effects of the system of education, and its claims to ‘include’ while continuously identifying the failures of the excluded. The psychosocial dimension of these dynamics are explored by drawing on several Lacanian ideas, including the subject's fear of indistinction from the (m)other, and the desire to secure social identity through founding exclusions and prohibitions. The conclusion explores how Lacan's notion of traversing the fantasy, as the aim of psychoanalytic treatment, bears relation to the concept of cosmopolitanism, including how such a traversing might be lived by education and social care practitioners.
机译:本文是对约翰·阿德兰(John Adlam)和克里斯·斯坎伦(Chris Scanlon)关于拒绝和排斥社会护理服务的论点的回应,正如本期特刊所探讨的那样。它建立在他们通过参考狄奥涅涅斯的图论,在大都市和大都会的包容模型之间建立区别的基础上,通过两位作家拉贝莱和兰西埃的著作研究了这些模型。十六世纪小说家拉贝莱斯(Rabelais)将他的著作与第欧根尼的行为进行了比较,后者当时是在模仿哥林多市民的忙碌工作,为宗教战争做准备,而后者则在科林斯的城墙上翻滚并殴打了他的枪管。通过这种比较,拉贝莱伊斯质疑殖民正义作为以包容性(基督教)社会秩序形式建立“共同利益”的战略的主张。当代法国哲学家雅克·兰西埃(JacquesRancière)采取了某些类似的措施,探索了“民主的仇恨”,它通过国家干预(尤其是教育)来努力使人们平等。他将平等作为出发点而不是终点的概念,可以探索教育制度的有害影响,并主张其“包括”,同时不断地确定被排斥者的失败。这些动态的社会心理层面是通过借鉴拉康主义的几种观念来探索的,包括受试者对与他人的区别,以及通过建立排斥和禁令来确保社会认同的渴望。该结论探讨了作为心理分析治疗目标的拉康穿越幻想的概念如何与世界主义的概念相关,包括教育和社会护理从业者如何进行这种穿越。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号