A plea for excuses

Austin, John

doi:10.1007/978-1-349-15426-5_6

Cited by 230 publications

(111 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

104

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A patient might reasonably reach such a conclusion by the conspicuous absence of questions probing for his or her reasons for taking an overdose and why that particular course of action rather than some other was pursued. Furthermore, patients who have done something as dramatic and socially reprehensible as committing a suicidal act (Hillman 1997) and who are not called upon to explain or justify their actions are effectively silenced (Austin 1961). Such patients might well complain, as many do, of not being listened to, and generally disrespected (Pallikkathayil and McBride 1986, Suokas and Lonnqvist 1989, Sheard et al 2000, NICE 2004).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The clinical assessment of patients admitted to hospital following an episode of self‐harm: a qualitative study

Redley

2010

Sociology Health & Illness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based upon qualitative interviews with clinicians responsible for assessing patients admitted to hospital following an episode of self-harm by overdose, this paper documents interactional factors that shape both how clinicians conduct these assessments and their understanding of what 'causes' someone to harm themselves. The analysis first documents how the patients' overdoses are framed as essentially impulsive acts committed in response to adverse circumstances. This is achieved by clinicians' avoidance of any engagement with, or assessment of, a patient's reasons for taking an overdose. Secondly, the analysis considers why the patients' reasons for taking an overdose do not feature in the clinicians' assessments, and shows, by an examination of two deviant cases, that clinicians avoid engaging with patients' motivations so as to: minimise the risk of generating bedside disagreements; avoid the possibility of being drawn into the emotional life of a patient, and shield themselves from the social and economic inequalities that are a feature of many patients' lives. The paper concludes with a discussion of how bedside assessments that do not engage with patients' reasons for taking an overdose might be experienced by the patients themselves and the deleterious effect this could have upon their clinical management.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The clinical assessment of patients admitted to hospital following an episode of self‐harm: a qualitative study

Redley

2010

Sociology Health & Illness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Disclaimers are reassuring, not because they are necessarily factually convincing, but because they are familiar. In this, they follow the principles that Austin (1971) identified as characteristic of excuses. Disclaimers do not presuppose belief in their sincerity, although in some cultures the performance of sincerity (see Handler 1986)*like that of secrecy (see Herzfeld 1985: 207Á9)*includes the articulation of disclaimers.…”

Section: Disclaimer and Discontent: Globalising Racismmentioning

confidence: 98%

Small-Mindedness Writ Large: On the Migrations and Manners of Prejudice

Herzfeld¹

2007

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…When faced with identical questions having to do with “knowledge”, East Asians and Westerners likely call distinct (perhaps subtly distinct) concepts to mind. Such occurrences—what Austin (, p. 9) refers to as “snags of loose usage”—would explain the significant difference between the judgments that the two groups make. And it would do so without calling into question the c‐reliability of participant judgments .…”

Section: A More Defensible Positive Experimental Philosophymentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental Explication

Schupbach

2015

Philos Phenomenol Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two recently popular metaphilosophical movements, formal philosophy and experimental philosophy, promote what seem to be conflicting methodologies. Nonetheless, I argue that the two can be mutually supportive. I propose an experimentally‐informed variation on explication, a powerful formal philosophical tool introduced by Carnap. The resulting method, which I call “experimental explication,” provides the formalist with a means of responding to explication's gravest criticism. Moreover, this method introduces a philosophically salient, positive role for survey‐style experiments while steering clear of several objections that critics of “positive experimental philosophy” raise. Thus, it provides the experimentalist with a more defensible example of how empirical work can have positive philosophical import. For these reasons, experimental explication should appeal to experimental philosophers (at least those working within the positive program) and formal philosophers alike.

show abstract

A plea for excuses

Cited by 230 publications

References 0 publications

The clinical assessment of patients admitted to hospital following an episode of self‐harm: a qualitative study

The clinical assessment of patients admitted to hospital following an episode of self‐harm: a qualitative study

Small-Mindedness Writ Large: On the Migrations and Manners of Prejudice

Experimental Explication

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About