Bridging vs. bonding: achieving participatory parity in recovery communities

Abstract

Purpose

Mental health professionals have increasingly taken for granted the discourse of social inclusion, and so the purpose of this paper is to highlight two competing visions of community that exist for people with mental illnesses.

Design/methodology/approach

Review of literature.

Findings

The first vision of community holds to the Durkheimian belief that social integration not only promotes mental health, but also signifies successful adaptation and recovery from a pathological state. The second vision holds to the Foucauldian belief that integration can be a means of social control. What is often overlooked is how these contending paradigms might play out differently in liberal welfare states when compared to social democracies.

Originality/value

The author draws from Nancy Fraser's theory of redistribution and recognition to interrogate both positions. How can society achieve universal citizenship and inclusion for people with mental illnesses by only providing surface-level reallocations? How do enclave models detract from efforts to move toward deep restructuring of society? The author recognizes that each vision advocates for social justice, but carries distinct implications for mental health policy and practice.

Citation

Oh, H. (2014), "Bridging vs. bonding: achieving participatory parity in recovery communities", Mental Health and Social Inclusion, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 77-82. https://doi.org/10.1108/MHSI-07-2013-0027