Carel’s Phenomenological Approach to Illness
Havi Carel has claimed that one can be sick and live a meaningful life. A significant part of her argument for this seemingly contradictory assertion is that sick people may establish positive reactions to illness, particularly in creativity and adaptability. As characterizes the phenomenological emphasis on the integrated nature of illness perception, these two constructive responses contain several types of experience. Illness highlights two gaps that exist in health. On one end, there’s the lived and biological bodies; on the other, the physical and social worlds. It takes substantial adaptation and creativity to restore or substitute these experiences, and thus illness, adequately conceived, causes adaptability and thus becomes a source of creative responses to it. Carel’s interpretation of sickness and happiness deepens her understanding and shows valuable new links within philosophy to other related debates. This paper expands on Carel’s phenomenological approach to illness and that constructive response to illness can lead to happiness and make life meaningful
Carel criticizes prevailing illness and illness theories. The dominant theories of the illness are predominantly naturalistic. Naturalistic theories, Carel claims, are based on a disconnected methodology to illness that ignores and disregards the sick person’s real experience. These theories claim that illness is mainly, even exclusively, deterioration of biological function while removing the profound philosophical aspects dimensions of illness, such as the loss of personality, sense of possibilities, and control that often accompany having an illness people (Carel, 2007, p. 98). Carel supports the incorporation of biological aspects understanding illness but highlights that it is essential to complement those theories by integrating the sick’s actual experiences.
Carel suggests an alternate methodology to illness that compares two representations of the body: the lived and the biological. The body’s biological aspect is the focus of most medical research and therapies when it comes to physiology, biochemistry, and other medical fields. On the other hand, the lived body is the people themselves and how they communicate with the environment and what is central to themselves. Therefore, in profound and distinctly subjective terms, the living body must be interpreted using narration, sentiment, and testimonial and biographical accounts. An illness causes a disturbance of the bond between the lived and the biological bodies (Carel, 2007, p. 99). These two bodies are perfectly matched with one another for a healthy individual. The biological body and the lived body correlate seamlessly, but the illness breaks this cohesive relationship. Instead of consistent communication, an individual notices that the biological body accidentally acts strangely; it displays odd signs and becomes erratic. Its consistent silent feature disappears as it becomes the focus of medical attention.
This perspective is the focus of Carel’s account of illness. Illness is mainly seen as the division between the two representations of the body. It entails disconnection or detachment from the biological body and related experiences of frustration with activities and relationships that would otherwise be enjoyable. As one becomes reliant, to a considerable degree, on family, friends, medical staff, and even strangers, their personal independence is undermined. Illness also provides fresh and unwelcome opportunities for discomfort, humiliation, anxiety, and frustration, prospects that are compounded by their uncertainty, and, in certain instances, untreatability. Besides, illness limits the opportunities available, such as professional development, participating in certain activities such as sports.
A phenomenological perspective on illness reveals elements of the misery due to illness missing from naturalistic theories. While it increases our knowledge of the negative effects of sickness, it has good outcomes. Carel emphasizes that there is both cognitive and clinical importance to a phenomenological approach. The cognitive side of illness provides a remarkable chance to consider the difference in the perception of the lived body and the biological body. This discrepancy remains unknown to many healthcare professionals. Therefore, utilizing phenomenology to study the connection between lived and biological bodies may lead to metaphysical interpretation and guide clinical practice (Carel, 2007, p. 99). Carel suggests that healthcare professionals should use phenomenological approaches to provide the principles and beliefs required to establish comprehensive knowledge of the illness.
Carel uses the notion of the reintegration of the two representations of the body as the basis for her approach to understanding illness. Two positive responses are required to restore the usually flawless communication between the two distinct representations of the body: adaptability and creativity (Carel, 2007, p. 104). As befits the phenomenological emphasis on the integrated nature of illness perception, these two constructive responses contain several modes of experience. It takes substantial adaptation and creativity to restore or substitute these experiences. Thus illness, adequately designed, causes the ability to adapt and thus becomes a way of generating new responses.
The positive reactions to illness identified by Carel involve a series of changes in perceptions and attitudes. Adaptive and creative responses are needed to reintegrate the lived and biological bodies and change one’s actions within the physical and social environments. Carel emphasizes that it can take a lot of time and effort to reintegrate effectively; moreover, it is a transformational accomplishment that involves both the significant development and application of new advancements and the refinement of current ones (Carel, 2007, p. 109). As a response to illness, a person may become more creative or have their established creativity grow in unexpected ways. Although such creativity and adaptation are complicated, it results in improved quality of life, a sense of accomplishment, and happiness.
Carel’s phenomenological account of illness gives many ways for individuals to experience happiness and live a meaningful life. While illness is not usually associated with happiness and life satisfaction, it is especially significant for sick people, particularly chronically ill patients. By stressing different meanings and giving importance and moral significance to illness, the phenomenological view extends and enriches Carel’s account. Carel’s approach helps capture the many ways sick people can view illness positively and seek “the good life” successfully by embracing adaptation and creativity. Therefore, I agree with her point of view, as it enhances the meaning and overall importance of human life.
References
Carel, H. (2007). Can I be ill and happy? Philosophia, 35(2), 95-110. doi: 10.1007/s11406-007-9085-5