Diagnosekultur - Et teoretisk studie af samfundets diagnoseforståelse og betydningen af diagnosticering for individet

Abstract

Dette teoretiske projekt undersøger rammerne og vilkårene for diagnoseforståelsen i det aktuelle samfund og den betydning det har for individet at blive diagnosticeret. Først vil der være et kapitel om historiske aspekter vedrørende sygdomsforståelse og diagnosemanualerne. Kapitlet med at give bud på normalitet. Efterfølgende vil rammerne og vilkårene for diagnoseforståelsen blive set som skabt af diagnosemanualerne ved at definere hvad normalt og patologisk i henhold til Allan V. Horwitz og Jerome C. Wakefields patologiseringsforklaring, som skabt af kravene som præstationssamfundet sætter præstationsindividet i henhold til Anders Petersens epidemiforklaring, samt skabt af de forskellige accelerationer i samfundet i henhold til Hartmut Rosas accelerationssamfund. Betydningen af at få en diagnose kan blive set gennem hvordan individet skaber selvfortolkninger i henhold til Rosa's selvfortolkningsmodel, hvor individet kategoriserer sig selv i henhold til Henri Tajfel og John Turners socialidentitetstilgang, og hvordan en person bliver kategoriseret ud fra vedkommendes egenskaber i henhold til Erving Goffmans stigmateori. I forlængelse heraf undersøger diskussionen grundene til, hvorfor mængden af mennesker, der har en diagnose, er så lav, når teorierne plæderer for en stigning i antallet af diagnosticerede mennesker. En grund hertil kunne være resiliens, hvor mennesker kan være resiliente end før, kan have noget at gøre med forholdet mellem resiliens og sårbarhed, hvor mennesker ikke har haft en traumatisk oplevelse eller at samfundet kan ses som fremmende resiliens. Det kan også have noget at gøre med, at de fleste mennesker ikke har nogle problemer med at følge med accelerationen eller at mennesker bruger det diagnostiske sprog uden at se en læge for at verificere anvendelsen af sproget. Et andet diskussionspunkt omhandlede de mulige fordele og ulemper for individet ved at blive diagnosticeret. Fordelene handler om have en begrundelse for de forskelle individet kan opleve, fratage skyld og skam som kan associeres med at være anderledes og bruge diagnosen som en undskyldning. Ulemperne handler følelsen af at blive dømt til at være en bestemt person og muligheden for at blive stigmatiseret. Det sidste diskussionspunkt har et teoretisk udsyn, hvor teoriernes ligheder og forskelle udforskes gennem tre forskellige temaer.

This theoretical project studies the frames and conditions for understanding diagnosis in the current society and the meaning it has for the individual to be diagnosed. First there will be a section about the historical view of the understanding of diseases as well as of the diagnostic manual of mental diseases. The section will end with a view on the challenge to define normality. Afterwards the frames and conditions for understanding a diagnosis will be viewed as being created by the diagnostic manual by defining what is normal and pathological in regard of Allan V. Horwitz and Jerome C. Wakefield’s pathologization explanation, as created by the demands of the performance society to the performance individual in regard of Anders Petersen’s epidemic explanation, and as created by the different accelerations in society in regard of Hartmut Rosa’s acceleration society. The meaning of becoming a diagnosis will then be viewed through how the individual creates self-interpretations in regard of Rosa’s self-interpretation model, how the individual is categorizing itself in regard of Henri Tajfel and John Turner’s social identity approach, and in how a person is being categorized by its features in regard of Erving Goffman’s stigma theory. In continuation hereof the discussion investigates reasons why the amount of people having a diagnosis is so low when the theories are preparing the ground for an increase in the amount of diagnosed people. One reason could be resilience, where people can be more resilient than before, can have something to do with the relationship between resilience and vulnerability, where people have not had a traumatic experience or that society can be seen as promoting resilience. It can also have something to do with that most people do not have any problems following the speed of the development or that people are using the diagnostic words without visiting a doctor to prove if using the word is correct. Another discussion point was about the possible pros and cons for an individual to be diagnosed. The pros are about having an explanation for the differences, the individual can experience, taking away the blame and guilt there can be associated with being different, and having the diagnosis as an excuse. The cons are about the feeling of being judged to be someone particular, and the possibility of getting stigmatized. The last discussion has a theoretical view where the theories similarities and differences are explored through three different themes.

A master thesis from Aalborg University

Diagnosekultur - Et teoretisk studie af samfundets diagnoseforståelse og betydningen af diagnosticering for individet

[Diagnostic culture - A theoretical study of the society's understanding of diagnosis and the meaning of diagnosing for the individual]