Résumé
Cet article s’interroge sur ce qu’il advient des notions issues de « savoirs profanes » lorsqu’elles sont réappropriées par, et intégrées dans, les « savoirs experts » au travers de l’exemple du « rétablissement » en psychiatrie. Né des mouvements d’ex-patients aux États-Unis, le « rétablissement » est imposé de façon top-down par les soignants dans le système de santé mentale suisse romand. Ce faisant, le « rétablissement » est transformé, s’éloignant passablement de ses significations et buts premiers. En effet, pour favoriser sa diffusion et son implantation dans les politiques publiques, il est opérationnalisé sous forme de modèle, permettant le développement de mesures d’efficacité de celui-ci. Émerge alors une situation paradoxale où certains patients ne connaissent pas le « rétablissement », et ce sont les professionnels de la psychiatrie qui leur expliquent qu’ils « sont rétablis » ou « en train de se rétablir ». Dès lors, il importe que les professionnels ne se contentent pas uniquement de s’approprier des savoirs profanes, mais qu’ils donnent une véritable place, dans le système de soins, aux porteurs de ces savoirs.
This article questions what happens to the notions developed by laymen when they are recaptured by, and integrated in, expert knowledge, through the example of « recovery » in mental health. Born from the ex-patient movements in the United States, « recovery » was imposed in a top-down approach by healthcare professionals in the mental health system of the French-speaking part of Switzerland. By so doing, « recovery » was transformed and estranged from its preliminary meanings and goals. As a matter of fact, to help its diffusion and implementation in public policy, « recovery » was operationalized as a model, therefore enabling the measurement of its efficacy. Consequently, a paradoxical situation emerged, in which some patients do not know what « recovery » is, but are told by mental health professionals that they are « recovered » or « in recovery ». Therefore, it is important that professionals do not only appropriate laymen knowledge, but that they give a real place in the healthcare system to the bearers of this knowledge
This article questions what happens to the notions developed by laymen when they are recaptured by, and integrated in, expert knowledge, through the example of « recovery » in mental health. Born from the ex-patient movements in the United States, « recovery » was imposed in a top-down approach by healthcare professionals in the mental health system of the French-speaking part of Switzerland. By so doing, « recovery » was transformed and estranged from its preliminary meanings and goals. As a matter of fact, to help its diffusion and implementation in public policy, « recovery » was operationalized as a model, therefore enabling the measurement of its efficacy. Consequently, a paradoxical situation emerged, in which some patients do not know what « recovery » is, but are told by mental health professionals that they are « recovered » or « in recovery ». Therefore, it is important that professionals do not only appropriate laymen knowledge, but that they give a real place in the healthcare system to the bearers of this knowledge