↓ Skip to main content

“You can’t choose these emotions… they simply jump up”: Ambiguities in Resilience-Building Interventions in Israel

Overview of attention for article published in Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
Title
“You can’t choose these emotions… they simply jump up”: Ambiguities in Resilience-Building Interventions in Israel
Published in
Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11013-016-9504-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ariel Yankellevich, Yehuda C. Goodman

Abstract

Following the growing critique of the use of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in post-disaster interventions, a new type of intervention aimed at building resilience in the face of traumatic events has been making its first steps in the social field. Drawing on fieldwork of a resilience-building program for pre-clinical populations in Israel, we analyze the paradoxes and ambiguities entailed in three inter-related aspects of this therapeutic project: The proposed clinical ideology aimed at immunizing against traumas; the discursive and non-discursive practices used by the mental-health professionals; and, participants' difficulties to inhabit the new resilient subject. These contradictions revolve around the injunction to rationally handle emotions in response to disruptive traumatic events. Hence, the attempt to separate between a sovereign rational subject and a post-traumatic subject is troubled in the face of experiences of trauma and social suffering. Furthermore, we demonstrate how these difficulties reconstitute unresolved tensions between mimetic and anti-mimetic tendencies that have been pervading the understanding of trauma in the therapeutic professions. Finally, we discuss how the construction of the resilient subject challenges the expanding bio-medical and neoliberal self-management paradigm in mental health.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Master 7 13%
Researcher 5 9%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 23%
Social Sciences 9 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 16%
Unspecified 4 7%
Engineering 3 5%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 11 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 April 2017.
All research outputs
#3,505,282
of 23,906,448 outputs
Outputs from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#226
of 622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,465
of 336,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,906,448 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,774 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.