Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T08:49:24.957Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Re-embodiment and Rehabilitation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2012

Keri Chiveralls*
Affiliation:
University of Adelaide, Australia
*
University of Adelaide, Centre for Labour Research, Tower Building, Pultney Street, SA 5005, Australia, Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This article examines the process of rehabilitation through Wendy Seymour's concept of re-embodiment and Pierre Bourdieu's concept of habitus. It argues that rehabilitation practitioners need to focus not only on the damaged body of the patient, but also on the patient's subjective experiences of health and illness and the wider social context in which they occur. The process of disembodiment caused by periods of injury or sickness creates a rupture in the ordinary experience of the individual in society. In doing so, it renders both the individual habitus and ordinary societal conceptions problematic. Individuals must then embark on a process of transformation or identity reconstruction, whereby they again come to understand themselves as “healthy”. As rehabilitation workers are likely to work closely with people over an extended period of time, they are in an excellent position to consider the person not just as an objective patient, but as a person or subject influenced by many overlapping social forces and relationships that have an impact upon their reconstitution of identity, their rehabilitation and re-embodiment. Thus, rehabilitation as re-embodiment offers an opportunity for both the patient and practitioner to reconsider themselves and their place in society, and in doing so, to effect social change both within themselves and society at large.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Bury, M. (1982). Chronic illness as biographical disruption. Sociology of Heakh and Illness, 4, 167182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Connell, R.W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. St. Leonardss, Australia: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
d'Houtard, A., & Field, M.G. (1984). The image of health: Variations in perception by social class in a French population. Sociology of Health and Illness, 6, 3060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge & Keegan Paul.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1979). An introduction (Hurley, R., Trans., Vol. 1). London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Ife, J. (2002). Community development: Community-based alternatives in an age of globalisation (2nd ed.). Melbourne, Australia: Longman.Google Scholar
Kleinman, A. (1988). Illness narratives: Suffering, healing and the human condition. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lawton, J. (2003). Lay experiences of health and illness: Past research and future agendas. Sociology of Health and Illness, 25, 2340.Google ScholarPubMed
Luhrman, T.M. (1989). Persuasions of the witch's craft: Ritual and magic in present-day England. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Monaghan, L.F. (2001). Looking good, feeling good: The embodied pleasures of vibrant physicality. Sociology of Health and Illness, 23, 330356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T. (1952). The social system. London: Routledge & Keegan Paul.Google Scholar
Seymour, W. (1989). Bodily alterations: An introduction to a sociology of the body for health workers. St. Leonards, Australia: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Seymour, W. (1998). Remaking the body: Rehabilitation and change. St. Leonards, Australia: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Van Gennep, A. (1960). The rights of passage (Vizedom, M.B. & Caffee, G., Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Williams, S.J. (2000). Chronic illness as biographical disruption or biographical disruption as chronic illness? Reflections on a core concept. Sociology of Health and Illness, 22, 4067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar