↓ Skip to main content

Narrative self-appropriation: embodiment, alienness, and personal responsibility in the context of borderline personality disorder

Overview of attention for article published in Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
Narrative self-appropriation: embodiment, alienness, and personal responsibility in the context of borderline personality disorder
Published in
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11017-017-9422-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Allan Køster

Abstract

It is often emphasised that persons diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (BPD) show difficulties in understanding their own psychological states. In this article, I argue that from a phenomenological perspective, BPD can be understood as an existential modality in which the embodied self is profoundly saturated by an alienness regarding the person's own affects and responses. However, the balance of familiarity and alienness is not static, but can be cultivated through, e.g., psychotherapy. Following this line of thought, I present the idea that narrativising experiences can play an important role in processes of appropriating such embodied self-alienness. Importantly, the notion of narrative used is that of a scalar conception of narrativity as a variable quality of experience that comes in degrees. From this perspective, narrative appropriation is a process of gradually attributing the quality of narrativity to experiences, thereby familiarising the moods, affects, and responses that otherwise govern 'from behind'. Finally, I propose that the idea of a narrative appropriation of embodied self-alienness is also relevant to the much-debated question of personal responsibility in BPD, particularly as this question plays out in psychotherapeutic contexts where a narrative self-appropriation may facilitate an increase in sense of autonomy and reduce emotions of guilt and shame.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 31%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 12%
Student > Master 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Other 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 6 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Philosophy 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 7 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 28 November 2018.
All research outputs
#20,446,373
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#268
of 292 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#276,084
of 316,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 292 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 316,063 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.