Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-04T05:42:47.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

No substitute for human touch? Towards a critically posthumanist approach to dementia care

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2016

NICHOLAS JENKINS
NICHOLAS JENKINS*
Affiliation:
Sociology & Social Policy, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, UK.
*
Address for correspondence: Nicholas Jenkins, Sociology & Social Policy,University of the West of Scotland, Paisley Campus, Ellis Building, Paisley PA1 2BE, UK E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper develops a sociological critique of the pre-eminence of humanism in dementia care policy and practice. Throughout the centuries, humanism has served as something of a double-edged sword in relation to the care and treatment of people living with progressive neurocognitive conditions. On the one hand, humanism has provided an intellectual vehicle for recognising people with dementia as sentient beings with inalienable human rights. On the other hand, humanist approaches have relied upon and re-enforced normative understandings of what it means to be human; understandings that serve to position people with dementia as deficient. Two posthumanist approaches to dementia care policy and practice are explored in this paper: transhumanism and critical posthumanism. The former seeks, primarily, to use advances in 21st-century technologies to eradicate dementia. The latter seeks to de-centre anthropomorphic interpretations of what it means to be a person (with dementia), so as to create space for more diverse human–non-human relationships to emerge. The paper concludes with some tentative suggestions as to what a critically posthumanist approach to dementia care policy and practice might look like, as we move closer towards the middle of the 21st century.

Keywords

Alzheimer's diseaseassistive technologyhumanismtranshumanismsocial citizenshipsymbiontssymbiosis
Type
Articles
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 37 , Issue 7 , August 2017 , pp. 1484 - 1498
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alzheimer Europe 2014. Glasgow Declaration 2014. Alzheimer Europe, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
Alzheimer's Disease International 2012. World Alzheimer Report 2012: Overcoming the Stigma of Dementia. Alzheimer's Disease International, London.Google Scholar
Alzheimer's Disease International 2015. World Alzheimer Report 2015: The Global Impact of Dementia. Alzheimer's Disease International, London.Google Scholar
Alzheimer's Society 2011. Shortchanged: Protecting People with Dementia from Financial Abuse. Alzheimer's Society, London.Google Scholar
Badmington, N. 2000. Introduction: Approaching posthumanism. In Badmington, N. (ed.), Posthumanism. Palgrave, Basingstoke, UK, 1–10.Google Scholar
Bartlett, R. and O'Connor, D. 2007. From personhood to citizenship: broadening the conceptual base for dementia practice and research. Journal of Aging Studies, 21, 2, 107–18.Google Scholar
Bartlett, R. and O'Connor, D. 2010. Broadening the Dementia Debate: Towards Social Citizenship. Policy Press, Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
Berger, T., Hampson, R., Song, D., Goonawardena, A., Marmarelis, V. and Deadwyler, S. 2011. A cortical neural prosthesis for restoring and enhancing memory. Journal of Neural Engineering, 8, 4, 046017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bharucha, A., Anand, V., Forlizzi, J., Dew, M., Reynolds, C., Stevens, S. and Wactlar, H. 2009. Intelligent assistive technology applications to dementia care: current capabilities, limitations, and future challenges. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 17, 2, 88–104.Google Scholar
Biggs, S., Manthorpe, J., Tinker, A., Doyle, M. and Erens, B. 2009. Mistreatment of older people in the United Kingdom: findings from the first national prevalence study. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 21, 1, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bostrom, N. 2005. Transhumanist values. In Adams, F. (ed.), Ethical Issues for the Twenty-first Century. Philosophical Documentation Centre Press, Charlottesville, Virginia, 3–14.Google Scholar
Braidotti, R. 2013. The Posthuman. Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
British Assistive Technology Association 2012. Further Information on What Assistive Technology Is. BATA, Worcester, UK. Available online at http://www.bataonline.org/further-assistive-technology-definition [Accessed 25 September 2015].Google Scholar
Brooker, D. 2003. What is person-centred care in dementia? Reviews in Clinical Gerontology, 13, 3, 215–22.Google Scholar
Brooker, D. 2007. Person-centred Dementia Care: Making Services Better. Jessica Kingsley, London.Google Scholar
Clarke, A. 2003. Natural-born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies & the Future of Human Intelligence. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Cross-Party Group on Alzheimer's 2009. Charter of Rights for People with Dementia and Their Carers. Scottish Government, Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Ferrando, F. 2013. Postthumanism, transhumanism, antihumanism, metahumanism and new materialisms: differences and relations. Existenz, 8, 2, 26–32.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1970. The Order of Things. Tavistock, London.Google Scholar
Fukuyama, F. 2003. Our Posthuman Future. Profile Books, London.Google Scholar
Fukuyama, F. 2004. Transhumanism. Foreign Policy, 144, 42–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geertz, G. 1975. On the nature of anthropological understanding. American Scientist, 63, 1, 47–53.Google Scholar
Gibson, G., Newton, L., Pritchard, G., Finch, T., Brittain, K. and Robinson, L. 2014. The provision of assistive technology products and services for people with dementia in the United Kingdom. Dementia: International Journal of Social Research & Practice. doi:10.1177/1471301214532643.Google Scholar
G8 UK 2013. The G8 Dementia Summit Declaration. Department of Health, London. Available online at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/265869/2901668_G8_DementiaSummitDeclaration_acc.pdf [Accessed 25 September 2015].Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 2003. The Future of Human Nature. Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. [1991] 2007. A cyborg manifesto: science, technology and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In Bell, D. and Kennedy, B. (eds), The Cybercultures Reader. Routledge, London, 34–65.Google Scholar
Hayles, K. 1999. How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature and Informatics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Hudson, A. 2013. ‘A robot is my friend’: can machines care for elderly? British Broadcasting Corporation, London. Available online at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24949081 [Accessed 25 September 2015].Google Scholar
Hughes, J. 2004. The death of death. In Machado, C. and Shewmon, D. (eds), Brain Death and Disorders of Consciousness: Advances in Experimental Medicine & Biology. Springer Science, New York, 79–88.Google Scholar
Huijnen, C., Badii, A., van den Heuvel, H., Caleb-Solly, P. and Thiemert, D. 2011. Maybe it becomes a buddy, but do not call it a robot – seamless cooperation between companion robotics and smart homes. In Keyson, D., Maher, L., Streitz, N., Cheok, A., Augusto, J. C., Wichert, R., Englebienne, G., Aghajan, H. and Krose, B. (eds), Ambient Intelligence: Second International Joint Conference on AmI 2011. Springer, Berlin, 324–9.Google Scholar
Jenkins, N. 2014. Dementia and the inter-embodied self. Social Theory & Health, 12, 2, 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitwood, T. 1997. Dementia Reconsidered: The Person Comes First. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.Google Scholar
Knox, J. 2014. Active algorithms: sociomaterial spaces in the e-learning and digital cultures MOOC. Campus Virtuales, 3, 1, 42–55.Google Scholar
Kompridis, N. 2009. Technology's challenge to democracy: what of the human? Parrhesia, 8, 1, 20–33.Google Scholar
Kropotkin, P. [1902] 1972. Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. New York University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. 1962. The Nature of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Kurzweil, R. 2005. The Singularity is Near. Viking Press, New York.Google Scholar
Licklider, J. 1960. Man–computer symbiosis. IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, HFE-1, 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, B. 2002. Understanding State Welfare: Social Justice or Social Exclusion. Sage, London.Google Scholar
Marshall, T. [1950] 2009. Citizenship and social class. In Manza, J. and Sauder, M. (eds), Inequality and Society. W. W. Norton and Co., New York, 148–54.Google Scholar
Miah, A. 2007. Posthumanism: a critical history. In Gordijn, B. and Chadwick, R. (eds), Medical Enhancements & Posthumanity. Routledge, New York, 71–94.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. 1984. The phenomenon of social representations. In Farr, R. and Moscovici, S. (eds), Social Representations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 3–70.Google Scholar
National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders 2015. Quick Statistics. Available online at http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/pages/quick.aspx [Accessed 25 September 2015].Google Scholar
Online Etymology Dictionary 2015. Symbiosis. Online Etymology Dictionary. Available online at http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=symbiosis [Accessed 24 September 2015].Google Scholar
Pinel, P. 1806. A Treatise on Insanity: In Which Are Contained a New and More Practical Nosology of Maniacal Disorders That Has Yet Been Offered to the Public. W. Todd, Sheffield, UK.Google Scholar
Prensky, M. 2001. Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9, 5, 1–6.Google Scholar
Proudhon, P. [1890] 1970. What is Property: An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government. Dover Publications, New York.Google Scholar
Robinson, H., MacDonald, B. and Broadbent, E. 2015. Physiological effects of a companion robot on blood pressure of older people in residential care facility: a pilot study. Australasian Journal of Ageing, 34, 1, 27–32.Google Scholar
Rogers, C. [1967] 2004. On Becoming A Person. Constable, London.Google Scholar
Sabat, S. and Harré, R. 1992. The construction and deconstruction of self in Alzheimer's Disease. Ageing & Society, 12, 4, 443–61.Google Scholar
Scull, A. 1979. Moral treatment reconsidered: some sociological comments on an episode in the history of British psychiatry. Psychological Medicine, 9, 3, 421–8.Google Scholar
Sweeting, H. and Gilhooly, M. 1997. Dementia and the phenomenon of social death. Sociology of Health & Illness, 19, 1, 93–117.Google Scholar
Titmuss, R. 1944. The social environment and eugenics. The Eugenics Review, 36, 2, 53–8.Google ScholarPubMed
United Nations 1948. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations, New York.Google Scholar
United Nations 1966. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. United Nations, New York.Google Scholar
United Nations 2006. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. United Nations, New York.Google Scholar
Vinge, V. 1993. The coming technological singularity: how to survive in the post-human era. Vision 21 Symposium, 30–31 March, Westlake, Ohio. Available online at http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html [Accessed 24 September 2015].Google Scholar
Wolfe, C. 2010. What is Posthumanism? University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.Google Scholar