首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
文章检索
  按 检索   检索词:      
出版年份:   被引次数:   他引次数: 提示:输入*表示无穷大
  收费全文   2篇
  免费   1篇
  国内免费   1篇
  4篇
  2019年   1篇
  2017年   1篇
  2008年   1篇
  2007年   1篇
排序方式: 共有4条查询结果,搜索用时 0 毫秒
1
1.
The term “psychiatry” refers to two radically different ideas and practices: curing–healing “souls” and coercing–controlling persons. It is important that critics of psychiatry clarify whether they object to the former or the latter or both, and why. Because I believe coerced psychiatric relations are like coerced labor relations called “slavery,” and like coerced sexual relations called “rape,” I spent the better part of my professional life criticizing involuntary-institutional psychiatry and the insanity defense. In 1967, my effort to undermine the medical-political legitimacy of the term “mental illness” and the moral-legal legitimacy of depriving individuals of liberty by means of psychiatric rationalizations suffered a serious blow: the creation of the antipsychiatry movement. Despite their claims, “antipsychiatrists” rejected neither the idea of mental illness nor coercion practiced in the name of “treating” mental illness. Sensational claims about managing “schizophrenia” and pretentious pseudophilosophical pronouncements diverted attention from the crucial role of the psychiatrist as an agent of the state and as an adversary of the denominated patient. The legacy of the antipsychiatry movement is the creation of a catchall term used to delegitimize and dismiss critics of psychiatric fraud and force by labeling them “antipsychiatrists.”
Thomas SzaszEmail:
  相似文献   
2.
3.
Cameron Boult 《Ratio》2019,32(2):150-158
Distinguishing between excuses and exemptions advances our understanding of a standard range of problem cases in debates about epistemic norms. But it leaves open a problem of accounting for blameless norm violation in ‘prospective agents’. By shifting focus in our theory of excuses from rational excellence to norms governing the dispositions of agents, we can account for a fuller range of normative phenomena at play in debates about epistemic norms.  相似文献   
4.
组织中的申述指发生在组织环境中的解释。在理论上,研究者采用印象管理和归因、互动公正以及公平理论三种视角探讨申述对缓和组织困境的作用。在方法上,研究者除了使用关键事件调查和实验室实验法之外,发展了“置于情境的实验”方法。在研究成果上,发现申述除了具有积极作用之外,有时也具有反作用和副作用。文章还讨论了申述的应用价值  相似文献   
1
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号