Advertisement

BioSocieties

pp 1–23 | Cite as

Affect, intensity, and moral assemblage in rehabilitation practice

  • Thomas Abrams
  • Jenny Setchell
  • Patricia Thille
  • Bhavnita Mistry
  • Barbara E. Gibson
Original Article

Abstract

This paper uses the philosophy of Deleuze and Guattari to explore how disability is organized in the clinical setting, focusing on young men with muscular dystrophies. The authors of Capitalism and Schizophrenia present a robust philosophy of affect, used in three ways. First, they allow us to trace the interaction of bodies (natural, social, material or otherwise) in the clinical space. Second, Deleuze and Guattari provide a philosophy of intensity. We use this to explore the emotional intensities surrounding progressive disability in the clinical space. Finally, we argue that affective philosophy allows us to explore spaces of morality and obligation, among patients, parents, and practitioners, alike. Each facet is grounded in ethnographic data. The paper ends looking into disability studies’ critiques of medicalization and capitalism, in relation to critical rehabilitation science. Disability studies and critical rehabilitation science are steeped in affect. There is, however, much more work to do, in tandem.

Keywords

Disability Deleuze and Guattari Affect Morality Assemblage Rehabilitation 

References

  1. Barad, K. 2003. Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28 (3): 801–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes, C. 1998. The social model of disability: A sociological phenomenon ignored by sociologists? In The Disability Reader: Social Science Perspectives, ed. T. Shakespeare, 65–78. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes, C. 2003. What a difference a decade makes: Reflections on doing emancipatory disability research. Disability & Society 18: 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateson, G., D.D. Jackson, J. Haley, et al. 1956. Toward a theory of schizophrenia. Behavioral Science 1 (4): 251–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bushby, K., R. Finkel, D.J. Birnkrant, et al. 2010. Diagnosis and management of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, part 1: diagnosis, and pharmacological and psychosocial management. The Lancet Neurology 9 (1): 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Callon, M., and V. Rabeharisoa. 2004. Gino’s lesson on humanity: Genetics, mutual entanglements and the sociologist’s role. Economy and Society 33: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Spinoza, B. 1994. A Spinoza Reader: The ‘Ethics’ and Other Works. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Deleuze, G. 1990. Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  9. Deleuze, G. 2001. Spinoza: Practical Philosophy. San Francisco: City Lights Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Deleuze, G., and F. Guattari. 1983. Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  11. Deleuze, G., and F. Guattari. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dierckx de Casterlé, B., C. Gastmans, E. Bryon, et al. 2012. QUAGOL: A guide for qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies 49 (3): 360–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Emerson, Robert M., Rachel I. Fretz, and Linda L. Shaw. 2011. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fox, N.J. 2002. Refracting ‘health’: Deleuze, Guattari and body-self. Health 6: 347–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fox, N.J. 2016. Health sociology from post-structuralism to the new materialisms. Health 20 (1): 62–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fox, N.J., and P. Alldred. 2015. New materialist social inquiry: Designs, methods and the research-assemblage. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 18 (4): 399–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garfinkel, H. 1996. Ethnomethodology’s Program. Social Psychology Quarterly 59: 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gatens, M., and G. Lloyd. 1999. Collective Imaginings: Spinoza, Past and Present, 1st ed. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Gibson, B.E. 2006. Disability, connectivity, and transgressing the autonomous body. Journal of Medical Humanities 27: 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gibson, B.E. 2016. Rehabilitation: A Post-Critical Approach. Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gibson, Barbara E., David A. Nicholls, Jenny Setchell, and Karen Synne Groven. 2018. Manipulating Practices: A Critical Physiotherapy Reader. Oslo: Capellen Damm Akademisk.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goodley, D. 2001. ‘Learning difficulties’, the social model of disability and impairment: Challenging epistemologies. Disability & Society 16 (2): 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goodley, D. 2013. Dis/entangling critical disability studies. Disability & Society 28 (5): 631–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Laing, R.D. 1990. The Politics of Experience. England, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
  25. Law, J., and V. Singleton. 2005. Object Lessons. Organization 12: 331–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Massumi, B. 2015. Politics of Affect. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  27. Mol, A. 2002. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mol, A. 2008. The Logic of Care: Health and the Problem of Patient Choice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Oliver, M. 1990. The Politics of Disablement. London: MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Oliver, M. 1992. Changing the Social relations of research production? Disability, Handicap & Society 7: 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oliver, M. 2013. The social model of disability: thirty years on. Disability & Society 28 (7): 1024–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Passamano, L., A. Taglia, A. Palladino, et al. 2012. Improvement of survival in duchenne muscular dystrophy: Retrospective analysis of 835 patients. Acta Myologica 31 (2): 121.Google Scholar
  33. Rose, N. 1996. Inventing Our Selves: Psychology, Power, and Personhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ruddick, S. 2012. Power and the problem of composition. Dialogues in Human Geography 2 (2): 207–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schillmeier, M. 2010. Rethinking Disability: Bodies, Senses, Things. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Setchell, Jenny., David A. Nicholls, and Barbara E. Gibson. 2018. Objecting: Multiplicity and the practice of physiotherapy. Health 22(2): 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sienko, S., Buckon, C. Fowler, E. et al. (2016) Prednisone and deflazacort in duchenne muscular dystrophy: Do they play a different role in child behavior and perceived quality of life? PLoS Currents 8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4972246/, accessed 27 October 2016.
  38. Simon, H.A. 2000. Bounded Rationality in Social Science: Today and Tomorrow. Mind & Society 1: 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Abrams
    • 1
  • Jenny Setchell
    • 2
    • 3
  • Patricia Thille
    • 3
  • Bhavnita Mistry
    • 3
  • Barbara E. Gibson
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Sociology and Social AnthropologyDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  2. 2.University of QueenslandSt. LuciaAustralia
  3. 3.University of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations