Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Typ-2-Diabetes und Adipositas Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende Patientenratgeber
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
Erschienen in:

06.09.2018 | Scientific Contribution

Sharing lives, sharing bodies: partners negotiating breast cancer experiences

verfasst von: Marjolein de Boer, Kristin Zeiler, Jenny Slatman

Erschienen in: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy | Ausgabe 2/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

By drawing on Jean-Luc Nancy’s philosophy of ontological relationality, this article explores what it means to be a ‘we’ in breast cancer. What are the characteristics—the extent and diversity—of couples’ relationally lived experiences of bodily changes in breast cancer? Through analyzing duo interviews with diagnosed women and their partners, four ways of sharing an embodied life are identified. (1) While ‘being different together’, partners have different, albeit connected kinds of experiences of breast cancer. (2) While ‘being there for you’, partners take care of each other in mutually dependent ways. (3) While ‘being reconnected to you’, partners (re-)relate to each other through intimacy and sexuality. (4) While ‘being like you’, partners synchronize their embodied daily lives to one another, sometimes up to the point that the self cannot be distinguished from the other anymore. These ways reveal that being a ‘we’ involves complex affective, bodily encounters in which the many fault lines that both separate partners into individual selves and join them together as a unity are continuously reshaped and negotiated. Being a ‘we’ may be understood as something we have to do. Therefore, in being true to the legacy of Nancy, we argue at the end of this article for a sensible praxis of sharing a life and body, particularly in breast cancer.
Fußnoten
1
The authors acknowledge that the variation within the time past between the diagnosis and the interview may have a significant effect on the experiences expressed by the respondents. Two of the authors elaborate on the factor of temporality in relation to breast cancer experiences in another article (de Boer et al. 2015).
 
2
This way of analyzing empirical material, in fact, corresponds very well with various phenomenologists’ views on how to do their phenomenology. In line with Husserl (1960), Merleau-Ponty (1962) (and his successors) claim that we have to break with our natural attitude and thus to perform a phenomenological reduction. However, unlike Husserl, he emphasizes that the main lesson that the reduction can teach us is that a complete reduction is never possible (Merleau-Ponty 1962). The reduction does not reveal a world without our prejudices. More likely, it shows that we can never start from a value-free perspective. We have to take seriously our prejudices and explore them, something that hermeneutics professes. Phenomenology thus goes together with hermeneutics. Hermeneutic phenomenology, then, is concerned with human experiences as these are lived; it stays attentive to that which might otherwise be taken-for-granted, with the purpose of understanding and exploring the situated meanings of the subject as being-in-the-world, and as researchers, we acknowledge the need to reflectively attend to our own assumptions or prejudices as part of the interpretive process.
 
3
In his later work, especially in The Visible and the Invisible (1968), Merleau-Ponty sets out an ontology that ensures that in some sense the other is always already involved within the self, and he explicitly suggests that self and other are but the obverse and reverse of each other. In this ontology, however, relationality figures as an aspect of the selves’ lived experiences, instead of—as Nancy would argue—as the constitutive ground of lived experiences as such. Moreover, in The Visible and the Invisible, Merleau-Ponty predominantly refers to visuality in outlining this kind of relationality. The concept of motor-intentionality and the notion of ‘I can’ is not extensively elaborated on.
 
Literatur
Badr, H., and C. L. Carmack Taylor. 2006. Social constraints and spousal communication in lung cancer. Psycho-Oncology 15 (8): 673–683.CrossRef
Belcher, A. J., Laurenceau, J. P., Graber, E. C., Cohen, L. H., Dasch, K. B., and Siegel, S. D. 2011. Daily support in couples coping with early stage breast cancer: Maintaining intimacy during adversity. Health Psychology 30 (6): 665–673.CrossRef
Ben-Zur, H., et al. 2001. Coping with breast cancer: Patient, spouse, and dyad models. Psychosomatic Medicine 63 (1): 32–39.CrossRef
Blackman, L., and Venn, C. 2010. Affect. Body & Society 16 (1): 7–28.CrossRef
Charmaz, K., and McMullen, L. M. 2011. Five ways of doing qualitative analysis: Phenomenological psychology, grounded theory, discourse analysis, narrative research, and intuitive inquiry. New York: Guilford Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morrison, K. 2000. Research methods in education. London: Routledge Falmer.
Dautenhahn, K. 1997. I could be you: The phenomenological dimension of social understanding. Cybernetics & Systems 28 (5): 417–453.CrossRef
de Boer, M., van der Hulst, R., and Slatman, J. 2015. The surprise of a breast reconstruction: A longitudinal phenomenological study to women’s expectations about reconstructive surgery. Human Studies 38 (3): 409–430.CrossRef
Dekkers, W. J. 2001. Autonomy and dependence: Chronic physical illness and decision-making capacity. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 4 (2): 185–192.CrossRef
DeVisch, I. 2012. Jean-Luc Nancy and the Question of Community. London: Bloomsbury.
Featherstone, M. 2010. Body, image and affect in consumer culture. Body & Society 16 (1): 193–221.CrossRef
Fergus, K. D., and R. E. Gray. 2009. Relationship vulnerabilities during breast cancer: patient and partner perspectives. Psycho-Oncology 18 (12): 1311–1322.CrossRef
Foucault, M. 1963. Naissance de la clinique. Paris: PUF.
Garland-Thomson, R. 2015. A habitable world: Harriet McBryde Johnson’s “Case for My Life”. Hypatia 30 (1): 300–306.CrossRef
Germino, B. B., et al. 1995. Cancer and the partner relationship: What is its meaning?. Seminars in Oncology Nursing 11 (1): 43–50.CrossRef
Gilbert, E., et al. 2010. Re-negotiating sexuality and intimacy post-cancer: The experiences of carers in a couple relationship with a person with cancer. Archives of Sexual Behavior 39 (4): 998–1009.CrossRef
Given, B. A., et al. 2001. Family support in advanced cancer. Cancer Journal for Clinicians 51 (4): 213–224.CrossRef
Goffman, E. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon and Schuster Inc.
Grosz, E. 1994. Volatile bodies: Toward a corporeal feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Hagedoorn, M., et al. 2008. Distress in couples coping with cancer: A meta-analysis and critical review of role and gender effects. Psychological Bulletin 134 (1): 1–30.CrossRef
Hodges, L. J., et al. 2005. A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between the psychological distress of cancer patients and their carers. Social Science and Medicine 60 (1): 1–12.CrossRef
Husserl, E. 1960. Cartesian meditations: An introduction to phenomenology. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRef
Käll, L. F. 2009. A being of two leaves—On the founding significance of the lived body. In Body claims, ed. J. Bromseth, J. F. Käll and K. Mattson. Uppsala: Uppsala University.
Käll, J. F. 2013. Intercorporeality and the sharability of pain. In Dimensions of pain, ed. L. F. Käll. London: Routledge.
Käll, J. F., and K. Zeiler. 2014. Bodily relational autonomy. Journal of Consciousness Studies 21 (9–10): 100–120.
Kayser, K., et al. 2007. Cancer as a ‘We-Disease’: Examining the process of coping from a relational perspective. Families, Systems & Health 25 (4): 404–418.CrossRef
Langellier, K. M. 2001. You’re marked. Breast cancer, tattoo and the narrative performance of identity. In Narrative and identity: Studies in autobiography, self, and culture. ed. J. Brockmeier and D. A. Carbaugh. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Leder, D. 1990. The absent body. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lindseth, A., and Norberg, A. 2004. A phenomenological hermeneutical method for researching lived experience. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences 18 (2): 145–153.CrossRef
Lopez, V., Copp, G., and Molassiotis, A. 2012. Male caregivers of patients with breast and gynecologic cancer: Experiences from caring for their spouses and partners. Cancer Nursing 35 (6): 402–410.CrossRef
Mackenzie, C., and N. Stoljar. 2000. Relational autonomy: feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Malmqvist, E., and K. Zeiler. 2016. Bodily exchanges, bioethics and border crossing: perspectives on giving, selling and sharing bodies. Abingdon: Routledge.
Manne, S. L., et al. 2004. The interpersonal process model of intimacy: The role of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and partner responsiveness in interactions between breast cancer patients and their partners. Journal of Family Psychology 18 (4): 589–599.CrossRef
Manne, S., Badr, H., Zaider, T., Nelson, C., and Kissane, D. 2010. Cancer-related communication, relationship intimacy, and psychological distress among couples coping with localized prostate cancer. Journal of Cancer Survivorship 4 (1): 74–85.CrossRef
Massumi, B. 2002. Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRef
McLeod, C. 2002. Self-trust and reproductive autonomy. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRef
Mercadante, S. V., et al. 2012. Sexual issues in early and late stage cancer: A review. Supportive Care in Cancer 18 (6): 659–665.CrossRef
Merleau-Ponty, M. 1962. The phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge.
Merleau-Ponty, M. 1968. The visible and the invisible. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Merleau-Ponty, M. 1973. The prose of the world. Chicago: Northwestern University Press.
Nancy, J.-L. 1990. Corpus. Paris: Édition Métaillié.
Nancy, J.-L. 1993. Abandoned being. In The birth to presence, ed. Holmes B.. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Nancy, J.-L. 2000. Singular plural. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Perpich, D. 2005. Corpus meum: Disintegrating bodies and the ideal of integrity. Hypatia 20 (3): 75–91.CrossRef
Proot, I. M., et al. 2000. Patient autonomy during rehabilitation: The experiences of stroke patients in nursing homes. International Journal of Nursing Studies 37 (3): 267–276.CrossRef
Ribbens McCarthy, J., and R. Prokhovnik. 2014. Embodied relationality and caring after death. Body & Society 20 (2): 18–43.CrossRef
Ricoeur, P. 1991. From text to action: Essays in Hermeneutics II. Trans. Kathleen Blamey and John B. Thomson. London: Athlone Press.
Routasalo, P., et al. 1999. Physical touch in nursing studies: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing 30 (4): 843–850.CrossRef
Sartre, J.-P. 1943. L’être et le néant: Essai d’ontologie phénoménologique. Paris: Éditions Gallimard.
Scully, J. L. 2013. Disability and vulnerability: On bodies, dependence, and power. In Vulnerability: New essays in ethics and feminist philosophy, ed. C. Mackenzie, pp. 204–221. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Shildrick, M. 2001. Some speculations on matters of touch. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 26 (4): 387–404.CrossRef
Shildrick, M. 2008. Contesting normative embodiment: Some reflections on the psycho-social. Perspectives: International Postgraduate Journal of Philosophy 1: 12–22.
Slatman, J. 2005. The sense of life: Husserl and Merleau-Ponty on touching and being touched. Chiasmi International 7: 305–325.CrossRef
Slatman, J. 2014. Our strange body: Philosophical reflections on identity and medical interventions. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRef
Slatman, J., and G. Widdershoven. 2010. Hand transplants and bodily integrity. Body & Society 16 (3): 69–92.CrossRef
Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., and Larkin, M. 2009. Interpretative phenomenological analysis. Theory, method and research. London: Sage.
Sobchack, V. 2010. Living a ‘phantom limb’: On the phenomenology of bodily integrity. Body & Society 16 (3): 51–67.CrossRef
Sorial, S. 2004. Heidegger, Jean-Luc Nancy, and the question of Dasein’s embodiment: An ethics of touch and spacing. Philosophy Today 48 (2): 216–230.CrossRef
Traa, M. J., et al. 2015. Dyadic coping and relationship functioning in couples coping with cancer: A systematic review. British Journal of Health Psychology 20 (1): 85–114.CrossRef
Ucok, O. 2005. The meaning of appearance in surviving breast cancer. Human Studies 28 (3): 291–316.CrossRef
Ussher, J. M., et al. 2011. A qualitative analysis of changes in relationship dynamics and roles between people with cancer and their primary informal carer. Health 15 (6): 650–667.CrossRef
van Manen, M. 1990. Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. London: The Althouse Press.
Vermeer, W. M., et al. 2016. Cervical cancer survivors’ and partners’ experiences with sexual dysfunction and psychosexual support. Supportive Care in Cancer 24 (4): 1679–1687.CrossRef
Walsh, S. R., et al. 2005. The impact of breast cancer on younger women’s relationships with their partner and children. Families, Systems, & Health 23 (1): 80–93.CrossRef
Weiss, G. 1999. Body images: Embodiment as intercorporeality. London: Routledge.
Weiss, G. 2009. Intertwined identities: Challenges to bodily autonomy. Perspectives: International Postgraduate Journal of Philosophy 2 (1): 22–37.
Young, I. M. 2005. On female body experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Zahavi, D. 2014. Self and other: Exploring subjectivity, empathy, and shame. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Zahlis, E. H., and M. E. Shandis. 1991. Breast cancer: Demands of the illness of the patients partner. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology 9 (1): 75–93.CrossRef
Zeiler, K. 2014. A philosophical defense of the idea that we can hold each other in personhood: Intercorporeal personhood in dementia care. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 17 (1): 131–141.CrossRef
Zeiler, K. 2016. Relational ontology and ethics in online organ solicitation: the problem of sharing one’s body when being touched online. In Bodily exchanges, bioethics and border crossing: Perspectives on giving, selling and sharing bodies, ed. E. Malmqvist and K. Zeiler. London: Routledge.
Zeiler, K. 2018. On the Autós of autonomous decision making: Intercorporeality, temporality, and enacted normativities in transplantation medicine. In Existential medicine. Essays on health and illness, K. Aho, pp. 81–100. London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Metadaten
Titel
Sharing lives, sharing bodies: partners negotiating breast cancer experiences
verfasst von
Marjolein de Boer
Kristin Zeiler
Jenny Slatman
Publikationsdatum
06.09.2018
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy / Ausgabe 2/2019
Print ISSN: 1386-7423
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-8633
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-018-9866-6

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2019

Reflection in medical education: intellectual humility, discovery, and know-how

  • Scientific Contribution

Professional ethics: the case of neonatology

  • Open Access
  • Scientific Contribution

Inner posture as aspect of global meaning in healthcare: a conceptual analysis

  • Scientific Contribution

Clinical cases and metaphysical theories of personal identity

  • Review Article

Leaving gift-giving behind: the ethical status of the human body and transplant medicine

  • Open Access
  • Scientific Contribution

The psychological slippery slope from physician-assisted death to active euthanasia: a paragon of fallacious reasoning

  • Scientific Contribution