Abstract
Mental sundhedsfremme og dertil knyttede metoder er i stærk vækst i velfærdssamfundet. Mental sundhed er dog ikke et nyt fænomen. Ved begyndelsen af det tyvende århundrede fremhævede Mind-Cure-bevægelsen i USA den helbredende kraft af positive følelser og overbevisninger. William James (1842-1910) anså Mind-Cure som en amerikansk pragmatisk drejning af den tids sundhedsfremme hen imod en mere optimistisk orientering i livet, en menneskelig karakter, der kunne opøves. James var fortaler for, at der skulle gennemføres empiriske studier, der kunne afdække effekterne af praktiseringen af Mind-Cure, men kritiserede samtidig Mind-Cure for at være ’halvreligiøs’ med begrænset rækkevidde. Hans hovedkritik, var at Mind-Cure kun var for en bestemt type mennesker, der evnede at organisere sindet, og at Mind-Cure afviste mentale sygdomme, lidelser og basale menneskelige konflikter, hvilket han mente var foruroligende. Artiklen tager afsæt i et sundhedspædagogisk perspektiv og i James kritik og giver tre eksempler på nutidig mental sundhedsfremme: mindfulness, religiøs coping og lært optimisme og diskuterer, hvorvidt Mind-Cure-traditionen forsættes med fastholdelse af de begrænsninger, som James noterede. Konklusionen er, mental sundhedspædagogik må konfrontere både positive og negative realiteter med tilgange, der kan hjælpe mennesker til at opretholde deres vilje til at være – selv under svære, uforanderlige eller begrænsede livsbetingelser.
Summary (English)
These days we face a whirl of mental health approaches within therapy, health promotion and education - but this is nothing new. By the early twentieth century, the Mind-Cure movement had been emphasizing the healing power of positive emotions and beliefs. William James (1842-1910)) defended the Mind-Cure through the debate around the scope of physicians' practice in the promotion of mental health. He saw the Mind-Cure as a typically American, pragmatic twist on mental health perceptions, through the religion of Healthy-Mindedness related to time. James was an advocate of carrying out empirical studies which could bring the effects of Healthy-Mindedness to light - but also criticized the Mind-Cure movement as being quasi-religious and having limited reach. His main criticism was its general rejection of the concepts of mental illness, suffering and basic human conflict. Today, many spiritual methods or practices of positive reflection go on to continue the tradition, while also retaining the limitations noted by James. Three examples of this are mindfulness, religious coping and learned optimism. This article discusses how James’s critique can challenge these current Mind-Cure methods. The point is that illness, suffering and mental disorder have not disappeared, but rather have intensified, and must necessarily be confronted through finding approaches that can help people maintain their willingness to be - even under severe, inalterable or restrictive living conditions.
Summary (English)
These days we face a whirl of mental health approaches within therapy, health promotion and education - but this is nothing new. By the early twentieth century, the Mind-Cure movement had been emphasizing the healing power of positive emotions and beliefs. William James (1842-1910)) defended the Mind-Cure through the debate around the scope of physicians' practice in the promotion of mental health. He saw the Mind-Cure as a typically American, pragmatic twist on mental health perceptions, through the religion of Healthy-Mindedness related to time. James was an advocate of carrying out empirical studies which could bring the effects of Healthy-Mindedness to light - but also criticized the Mind-Cure movement as being quasi-religious and having limited reach. His main criticism was its general rejection of the concepts of mental illness, suffering and basic human conflict. Today, many spiritual methods or practices of positive reflection go on to continue the tradition, while also retaining the limitations noted by James. Three examples of this are mindfulness, religious coping and learned optimism. This article discusses how James’s critique can challenge these current Mind-Cure methods. The point is that illness, suffering and mental disorder have not disappeared, but rather have intensified, and must necessarily be confronted through finding approaches that can help people maintain their willingness to be - even under severe, inalterable or restrictive living conditions.
| Originalsprog | Dansk |
|---|---|
| Tidsskrift | Tidsskrift for forskning i sygdom og samfund |
| Udgave nummer | 20 |
| Sider (fra-til) | 145-170 |
| Antal sider | 25 |
| ISSN | 1604-3405 |
| Status | Udgivet - 2014 |
| Udgivet eksternt | Ja |