El bebé como objeto virtual: Agencia y estabilidad en una unidad de cuidado
Resum
El trabajo de atención neonatal es una práctica social compleja. Puede entenderse como una red en la que los médicos, los bebés, los padres, la tecnología y la atención médica se alinean en relaciones dominadas por cuestiones de responsabilidad. La naturaleza de la atención neonatal implica que los límites de lo que se considera la unidad están en constante cambio. La aparición regular de nuevos miembros, nuevos pacientes y nuevas tecnologías significa que se debe dedicar mucho esfuerzo a mantener la unidad como una entidad funcional. Por lo tanto, lo que hay que explicar es la estabilidad en la práctica de la unidad, más que el cambio. Del mismo modo, la ambigüedad y la incertidumbre, más que la claridad y el procedimiento, son características importantes de la atención neonatal.
Examinamos cómo el bebé (es decir, el recién nacido que recibe atención) actúa como el «objeto» en torno al cual se organiza continuamente la unidad. La identidad del bebé —lo que es, qué atributos se consideran importantes, qué efectos genera— es cambiante. El personal «amplía» y «reduce» constantemente lo que es el bebé, desde un niño hasta un sistema biológico, de acuerdo con las exigencias del contexto (es decir, la trayectoria probable de la atención del bebé). La agencia del bebé es a menudo un recurso que se elabora y genera la propia red durante este proceso de escalado. En este sentido, el bebé es un «objeto virtual» que pasa por diversas identidades y relaciones. Describimos cómo parece funcionar este ciclo y la forma en que sirve para mantener unida la labor de atención neonatal.
Referències
Antaki, C. (1994). Explaining and Arguing: The social organisation of accounts. London: Sage.
Atkinson, P. (1995). Medical talk and medical work. London Sage.
Bayer, B. & Shotter, J. (eds.) (1997). Bodies, technologies and subjectivity. London: Sage.
Berg, M. (1997). Rationalising medical work: Decision support techniques and medical practices. Cambridge MA: MITPress.
Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and Thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress
Boden, D. and Zimmerman, D.H. (1991). Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brown, S.D. and Capdevila, R. (1999). “Perpetuum mobile: substance, force and the sociology of translation”. In J. Law and J. Hassard (eds.). Actor network theory and after. Oxford: Blackwell.
Brown, S.D. & Lightfoot, G. (2002). “Presence, absence and accountability. Email and the mediation of organisational life”. In S. Woolgar (ed.). Virtual Society? get real! Buckingham: Open UniversityPress.
Brown, S.D., Middleton, D.J. and Lightfoot, G. (2001). “Performing the past in electronic archives: Interdependencies in the discursive and non-discursive ordering of institutional remembering”. Culture and Psychology. Vol. 7(2): 123-144.
Burt, R.S. (1982). Towards a structural theory of action: Network models of social structure, perceptions, and action. New York: Academic Press.
Callon, M. and Law, J. (1995). “Agency and the hybrid collectif”. The South Atlantic Quarterly 94(2): 481-507.
Callon, M. (1986). “Some elements of a sociology of translation”. In J. Law (ed.). Power, action and belief. London: Routledge and KeganPaul.
Deleuze, G. (1997). Negotiations. London: Athlone.
Domènech, M., & Tirado, F. (2001). “The virtual and the social”. Presented at the Social Psychology of the Virtual, British Psychological Society Social Psychology Section Annual Conference, University of Surrey, 18-20 July 2001.
Edwards, D. & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage Publications.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Gordo-López, A.J. & Parker, I. (eds.) (1999). Cyberpsychology. London: Macmillan.
Hendriks, R. (1997). “On words and clocks: Temporal ordering in a ward for autistic youths”. In K. Hetherington & R. Munro (eds.). Ideas of difference. Oxford: Blackwell.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1988). The pasteurization of France & Irreductions. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1991). “Technology is society made durable”. In J. Law (ed.). “A sociology of monsters. Essays on power, technology and domination”. Sociological Review Monograph. Vol. 38. London: Routledge.
Latour, B. (1992). “Where are the missing masses?” In W.E. Bijker & J. Law (eds.). Shaping technology/building society, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Law, J. (1992a). “Notes on theory of actor-networks”. Systems Practice 5(4): 379-393.
Law, J. (ed.) (1992b). “A sociology of monsters. Essays on power, technology and domination”. SociologicalReview Monograph. Vol. 38. London: Routledge.
Lee, N. & Brown, S.D. (1994). “Otherness and the actor network”. American Behavioural Scientist, 37(6), 772-790.
Lee, N. & Stenner, P. (1999). “Who pays? Can we pay them back?” In Law, J. & Hassard, J. (eds.). Actor-network theory and after. Oxford:Blackwell.
Levy, P. (1998). Becoming virtual. NewYork: Plenum Press.
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rodríguez, I., López, D. and Vitores, A. (2001). “A world without walls”. Presented at the Social Psychology of the Virtual, British Psychological Society Social Psychology Section Annual Conference, University of Surrey, 18-20 July 2001.
Lynch, M. (1996). “DeKanting Agency: Comments on Bruno Latour's Interobjectivity. Mind Culture and Activity, 3(4), 246-258.
Michael, M. (2000). Technology, nature and culture. London: Routledge.
Middleton, D. (1996a). “Talking work: Argument, common knowledge and improvisation in multi-disciplinary teams”. In Y. Engestršm & D. Middleton (eds.). Cognition and communication at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Middleton, D. (1996b). “A discursive analysis of psychosocial issues: Talk in a 'parent group' for families who have children with chronic renal failure.” Psychology and Health, 11: 243-260.
Middleton, D. (1997a). “The social organisation of conversational remembering: Experience as individual and collective concerns”. Mind, Culture and Activity, 4 (2): 71-85.
Middleton, D. (1997b). “Conversational remembering and uncertainty: interdependencies of experience as individual and collective concerns in team work”, Journal of language and Social Psychology, 16(4): 389-410.
Middleton, D. (1998). “Reasonable Circumstances and Outcomes: Psychosocial support and socially remembered dilemmas in parents talk about their care of children with chronic renal failure”. In Resnick et al. Discourse, Tools and Reasoning. Springer-Verlag.
Middleton, D. (2002). “Succession and change in the socio-cultural use of memory: Building in the past in communicative action”. Culture and Psychology, 8(1): 79-95.
Middleton, D., Brown, S.D. and Curnock, D. (2000). “Topologies of durability and transformation in networks at work: Exploring the organisation of accountability and agency in neonatal intensive care”. Conference proceedings of the 3rd Conference for Socio-Cultural Research “New Conditions of Knowledge Production: Globalization and Social Practices”. Unicamp, Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 16-20 July 2000.
Middleton, D. and Curnock, D. (in press). “Talking matters at work: Arne Raeithal's scholarship and the semiotic regulation of co-operative work”. Mind Culture and Activity.
Mol, A. & Law, J. (1994). “Regions, networks and fluid: Anaemia and social topology”. Social Studies of Science, 24(4): 641-672.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). “Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turnshapes”. In J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.). Structures of social action: Studies in conversational analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology. London: Sage Publications.
Prince, E.F., Frader, J. and Bosk, C. (1982). “On hedging in physician-physician discourse”. In R.J. DiPietro (ed.). Linguistics and the professions, Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Raeithel, A. (1994). "Symbolic production of social coherence. The evolution of dramatic, discursive and objectified meaning systems". Mind, Culture and Activity, 1: 1-2, 69-88.
Raeithel, A. (1996). "On the ethnography of co-operative work". In YrjoEngestršm and David Middleton (eds.). Cognition and communication at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 319- 339.
Serres, M. (1982). The parasite. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
Serres, M. (1995). Angels: A modern myth. Paris: Flammarion.
Serres, M. (1997). The troubadour of knowledge. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Star, L. (1991). ”Power, technology and the phenomenology of conventions” In J. Law (ed.). A sociology of monsters. Essays on power, technology and domination. Sociological Review Monograph (vol. 38). London: Routledge.
Strathern, M. (1996). “Cutting the network”. J. Roy. anthrop. Inst, (2): 517-535.
Wasserman, S. and Galaskiwicz, J. (eds.) (1994). Advances in social network analysis: Research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Woodrow, J. (2001). “Digital photography as virtual society”. Presented at the Social Psychology of the Virtual, British Psychological Society Social Psychology Section Annual Conference, University of Surrey, 18-20 July 2001.
Publicades
Com citar
Descàrregues
Drets d'autor (c) 2002 David Middleton, Steven Brown
Aquesta obra està sota una llicència internacional Creative Commons Reconeixement-NoComercial-SenseObraDerivada 4.0.
