Architecture and freedom of movement in institutional living spaces
Cérèse, Fany
Architecture and freedom of movement in institutional living spaces - 2023.
2
This article draws on a comparative spatial analysis to shed light on the similarities that can arise between assisting living facilities, especially special care units, and carceral environments. It questions the validity of implementing spatial devices such as the use of optical illusion (e.g., concealed doors) or “travel therapy” (fake train carriages installed in care units) to ensure the protection and safety of individuals. Observations and discussions with patients who encounter these devices attest to an increase in confusion, prompting us to undertake a critical re-examination of these installations and to question their impact on people’s mental health. Many ethical questions are also raised, including manipulation of individuals in the name of their well-being. More generally, this article builds on the reflection previously developed by Kevin Charras (2022) around the concept of environmental iatrogenesis, which invites us to look for the possible origin of the observed behavioral disorders in the resident’s physical and social environment before assuming these behaviors are merely a manifestation of the person’s illness. At a time when there is a call to transform institutional living spaces into homelike environments, this architectural reflection raises questions about the right to take risks and share responsibilities in order to promote freedom of movement.
Architecture and freedom of movement in institutional living spaces - 2023.
2
This article draws on a comparative spatial analysis to shed light on the similarities that can arise between assisting living facilities, especially special care units, and carceral environments. It questions the validity of implementing spatial devices such as the use of optical illusion (e.g., concealed doors) or “travel therapy” (fake train carriages installed in care units) to ensure the protection and safety of individuals. Observations and discussions with patients who encounter these devices attest to an increase in confusion, prompting us to undertake a critical re-examination of these installations and to question their impact on people’s mental health. Many ethical questions are also raised, including manipulation of individuals in the name of their well-being. More generally, this article builds on the reflection previously developed by Kevin Charras (2022) around the concept of environmental iatrogenesis, which invites us to look for the possible origin of the observed behavioral disorders in the resident’s physical and social environment before assuming these behaviors are merely a manifestation of the person’s illness. At a time when there is a call to transform institutional living spaces into homelike environments, this architectural reflection raises questions about the right to take risks and share responsibilities in order to promote freedom of movement.
Réseaux sociaux