Mettre l’occupation au cœur de nos actions

From domestication to imperial patronage: Deconstructing the biomedicalisation of occupational therapy

Occupational therapy knowledge emerged in the 19th century as reformist movements responded to the industrialisation of society and capitalist expansion. In the Global North, it was institutionalised by State apparatuses during the First and Second World Wars. Although biomedicine contributed to the rapid expansion and establishment of occupational therapy as a health discipline, its domestication by the biomedical model led to an overly regulated profession that betrays its reformist ideals. Drawing on the work of Deleuze and Guattari, our aim in this article is to deconstruct the biomedicalisation of occupational therapy and demonstrate how resistance to this process is critical for the future of this discipline. The use of arts and crafts in occupational therapy may be conceptualised as a 'nomad science' aesthetically resisting the domination of industrialism and medical reductionism. Through the war efforts, a coalition of progressive nurses, social workers, teachers, artisans and activists metamorphosed into occupational therapists. As it did with nursing, biomedicine proceeded to domesticate occupational therapy through a form of 'imperial' patronage subsequently embodied in the evidence-based movement. 'Occupational' jargon is widely used today and may be viewed as the product of a profession trying to establish itself as an autonomous discipline that imposes its own regime of truth. Given the symbolic violence underlying this patronage, the future of occupational therapy should not mean behaving according to biomedicine's terms. As a discipline, occupational therapy must resist the appropriation of its 'war machine' and craft its own terms through the release of new creative energy.

The (dis)obedient occupational therapist: A reflection on dissent against disciplinary propaganda

Abstract Introduction Despite struggling to establish itself as an autonomous profession, occupational therapy remains extensively regulated and controlled by discursive authorities inside and outside the discipline. After overcoming the profession’s reformist ideals, the military governance that supported its rapid expansion morphed into civil institutions but both were based on similar grounds: occupational therapists should obey a strict set of rules while disobedience and dissent are consistently repressed or silenced. Objective The objective of this article is to deconstruct dominant (consensual) discourses that shape the status quo in occupational therapy and envision alternative paths for the development of the discipline. Method Drawing on the work of Erich Fromm and Jacques Rancière, we propose a (critical) theoretical analysis of the concepts of disobedience and dissensus as they apply to occupational therapists. Results The concepts of disobedience (Fromm) and dissensus (Rancière) can be used to revisit the consensus shaped by discursive authorities inside and outside occupational therapy and expose the political nature of such processes. We argue that remaining oppressive forces similar to those of a warfare regime persist in regulating occupational therapy practice and knowledge by enacting a form of ‘disciplinary propaganda.’ Rather than threatening the development of the discipline, disobedience and dissensus constitute critical responses to disrupt dominant discourses and give rise to healthier concepts. Conclusion The use of politically charged terms such as disobedience or dissensus can be seen as controversial and unsettling for a profession like occupational therapy but we believe they are necessary for the future of our discipline.