Análisis comparativo cognitivo y simbólico de las obras “La Domesticación del Pensamiento Salvaje” de Jack Goody y “Las Teorías de la Religión Primitiva” de E.E. Evans-PritchardAplicaciones para la Educación y para la Enfermería

  1. Marrero González, Cristo Manuel
Revista:
Cultura de los cuidados: Revista de Enfermería y Humanidades

ISSN: 1699-6003

Ano de publicación: 2022

Número: 64

Páxinas: 216-227

Tipo: Artigo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Outras publicacións en: Cultura de los cuidados: Revista de Enfermería y Humanidades

Resumo

Introduction: Jack Goody and Edward Evans Evans-Pritchard have been two eminent Africanist anthropologists who have developed their works and research regarding Cognitive and Symbolic Anthropology and can contribute knowledge to Applied Anthropology. Objectives: to expose the personal reflections on the intersections in cognitive and symbolic anthropology of the works of Jack Goody (The Domestication of Savage Mind) and Evans-Pritchard (Theories of Primitive Religion) and to argue in a reflexive way the possible applications of both works to Applied Anthropology in Education and in Transcultural Nursing. Methodology: in-depth reading and sub-sequent reflective comparative analysis of both works to then propose possible applications to the aforementioned disciplines or professions. Development and results: Jack Goody converges with Evans-Pritchard at a cognitive and symbolic level. Both authors show that human beings, regardless of their ethnic or cultural origin, have different forms of cognitive organization of reality and different symbolic forms of expressing and to ritualize their beliefs. This does not mean that some human groups are inferior to others, even if they are from preliterate societies. Conclusion and final reflection: both authors and both works can serve as semiotic elements for an education in cultural diversity, in the prevention of violent behaviour against hatred and to empathy people in their concept of health/disease to further develop Transcultural Nursing and Cultural Competence.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Appelbaum S, y Grisso T. (2001). MacCAT-CR Mac Arthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research, Sarasota (FL – USA), Professional Resource Press.
  • - Asociación Médica Mundial. Declaración de Helsinki. 1964. Disponible en: https://www.wma.net/es/policies-post/declaracion-de-helsinki-de-la-amm-principios-eticos-para-las-investigaciones-medicas-en-seres-humanos/
  • - Boldt J. (2019). The concept of vulnerability in medical ethics and philosophy. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 14:6.
  • - Bracken D., Bell E., Ellen M., y Racine E. (2017). The concept of ‘vulnerability’ in Research ethics: an in-depth analysis of policies and guidelines. Health Research Policy and Systems, 15:8. DOI 10.1186/s12961-016-0164-6.
  • - Bromwich D., y Rid A. (2015). Can informed consent to research be adapted to risk? J Med Ethics, 41:521–528. doi:10.1136/medethics-2013-101912.
  • - Bruce G. (2020). Vulnerability in Research: Basic Ethical Concepts and General Approach to Review. Ochsner Journal, 20:34–38.
  • - Calvin W, Reis A., y Saxena A. (2015). Vulnerability in international policy discussion on research involving children. Asian Bioethics Review, 7(2):230-249.
  • - Código de Núremberg. 1947. Disponible en: https://ancei.es/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Codigo-de-Nuremberg.pdf
  • - Consejo de Organizaciones Internacionales de las Ciencias Médicas. Pautas éticas internacionales para la investigación relacionada con la salud con seres humanos. 2016. Disponible en: https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/CIOMS-EthicalGuideline_SP_INTERIOR-FINAL.pdf
  • - Convención sobre los derechos de las personas con discapacidad. 2006. Disponible en: https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/documents/tccconvs.pdf
  • - Cunha T., y Garrafa V (2016). Vulnerability. A Key Principle for Global Bioethics? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 25:197 – 208.
  • - Dhai A. (2014). The research ethics evolution: From Nuremberg to Helsinki. S Afr Med J, 104(3):178-180. DOI:10.7196/SAMJ.7864
  • - Eustáquia M., y Francini D. (2018). The concept of vulnerability and its meanings for public policies in health and social welfare Cad. Saúde Pública, 34(3):e00101417.
  • - Fineman M. (2008). The Vulnerable Subject: Anchoring Equality in the Human Condition. Yale journal of law and feminism, 20(1):1-24.
  • - Henderson G., Davis A., y King A. (2004). Vulnerability to Influence: A Two-Way Street. American Journal of Bioethics , 4(3):50.
  • - Hurst S. (2008). Vulnerability in research and health care; Describing the elephant in the room? Bioethics, 22(4), 191–202.
  • - Informe Belmont. 1978. Disponible en: http://www.bioeticayderecho.ub.edu/archivos/norm/InformeBelmont.pdf
  • - Jinbin P. (2017). Historical Origins of the Tuskegee Experiment: The Dilemma of Public Health in the United States. Uisahak, Dec;26(3):545-578. doi: 10.13081/kjmh.2017.26.545.
  • - Kipnis K. (2001). “Vulnerability in research subjects: a bioethical taxonomy”. En: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, editor. Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants. Bethesda: National Bioethics. Advisory Commission; 2001. p. G1–G13.
  • - Kottow M. (2004). Vulnerability: What kind of principle is it? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 7: 281–287.
  • - Levine C., Faden R., Grady Ch., Hammerschmidt D., Eckenwiler L., y Sugarman J. (2004). The Limitations of “Vulnerability” as a Protection for Human Research Participants. The American Journal of Bioethics, 4(3): 44–49.
  • - Lozano J. (2022). El sentimiento kantiano de respeto como núcleo normativo en investigaciones sociales en contextos de vulnerabilidad. Recerca. Revista de Pensament i Anàlisi, 27(2),1-22. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.6035/recerca.6119
  • - Luna F. (2009). Elucidating the concept of vulnerability: layers not labels. Int J Fem Approaches Bioeth, 2(1):121-139.
  • - Mergen M., y Akpınar A. (2021) Vulnerability: An integrative bioethics review and a proposed taxonomy. Nursing Ethics, Vol. 28(5):750–765.
  • - Moreno A. (2013). La ética de la vulnerabilidad de Corine Pelluchon. Daimon Revista Internacional de Filosofia, (58), 171–178.
  • - Palmer B., Harmell A., Pinto L., Dunn L., Kim S., Golshan S., y Jeste, D. (2017). Determinants of capacity to consent to research on Alzheimer’s disease. Clinical Gerontologist, 40, 24–34.
  • - Rendtorff D., y Kemp P. (2000) Basic Ethical Principles. In European Bioethics and Biolaw. Vol. I: Autonomy, Dignity, Integrity and Vulnerability, y Vol. II: Partners' Research, Institut Borja de Bioética, Barcelona.
  • - Rogers W., y Meek M. (2013) Rethinking the vulnerability of minority populations in Research. Am J Public Health, Dec;103(12):2141-6. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.301200.
  • - Stienstra D, y Chochinov H. (2006). Vulnerability, Disability, and Palliative End-of-Life Care. Journal of Palliative Care, 22(3):166-74.
  • - Taua C, Christine N., y Hepworth J. (2014). Research participation by people with intellectual disability and mental health issues: An examination of the processes of consent. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 23, 513–524.
  • - Ten Have H. (2015). Respect for Human Vulnerability: The Emergence of a New Principle in Bioethics. Bioethical Inquiry, 12:395–408. DOI 10.1007/s11673-015-9641-9.
  • - Ten Have H., y Gordijn B. (2021) Vulnerability in light of the COVID‑19 crisis. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 24:153–154.
  • - UNESCO. Declaración Universal de Bioética y Derechos Humanos. Disponible en: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000146180_spa
  • - Van der Zande I., Van der Graaf R., Oudijk MA, y Van Delden JJM. (2017). Vulnerability of pregnant women in clinical Research. J Med Ethics, Oct;43(10):657-663. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2016-103955.
  • - Vicens E., Calcedo A., Hastings J., Männikkö M., y Silvia P. (2021). What Is the Capacity of Individuals with Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder to Make Healthcare Decisions? An Exploratory Study of the Views of Patients, Psychiatrists, and Family Caregivers—A Survey on Decisional Capacity in Mental Health. Psychiatry Int, 2, 127–144.
  • - Wrigley A. (2015). An eliminativist approach to vulnerability. Bioethics, 29(4):478–487.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet