Almost all the knowledge now produced about psychiatry includes what is called ''the patient's or client's perspective.'' This paper analyzes how this notion has been framed in the discourses on mental health over the last two decades, particularly in mental health research and in anthropology. The very concept of the ''patient's perspective'' is a social and historical construct. Despite its remarkable prevalence, the notion remains vague. Mental health research pictures it as a stable attribute of the individual. Anthropologists integrate the contextual nature of the patient view; but they still largely envision the psychiatric patient as a rational actor producing narratives based on common sense. However, in psychiatric practice, the client's perspective is not something the patient individually produces; it is rather shaped by and in a context. To explore this process, my research investigated interactions between staff and patients in a French community mental health center, and showed that the client's perspective is the result of a collective process. Further analysis demonstrates that eliciting or producing the patient's view is sometimes considered a therapeutic goal in itself, since being granted the status of a rational and narrative actor gives access to the most valued model of care, one that is based on partnership. Being an outcome that is negotiated between patients and care providers, the ''patient's view'' then becomes a new resource in mental health settings.Statement on ethics: The research conducted for this paper followed the ethical guidelines of the University Paris 5. After being presented with the objectives of the study and informed of their right to withdraw from the study as well as of the rules of confidentiality, the staff members and the residents separately gave their oral and written consent.L. Velpry

This paper examines the uncertain meaning of confinement in psychiatric care practices. Investigating the recent expansion of high-security units in French public psychiatry, for patients with dangerous behavior (units for difficult patients) and for suffering prisoners (specially-equipped hospital units), we aim to understand psychiatry's use of confinement as part of its evolving mandate over suffering individuals with violent behavior. Although historically the epicenter of secure psychiatric care for dangerous individuals shifted from the asylum to the prison, a review of public reports and psychiatric literature demonstrates that psychiatrists' attempt to reclaim confinement as part of therapeutic practice underpinned the recent development of new units. Institutional-level analysis emphasizes psychiatry's enduring concern to subordinate social defense motives to a therapeutic rationale. Analyzing local professionals' justifications for these units in two emblematic hospitals, the paradoxical effects of a security-driven policy arise: they allowed the units' existence, yet prevented psychiatrists from defending a genuine therapeutic justification for confinement. Instead, professionals differentiate each unit's respective mission, underlining the concern for access to care and human dignity or defending the need for protection and safety from potentially dangerous patients. This process reveals the difficulty of defining confinement practices as care when autonomy is a core social value.