L’impact socioterritorial d’un « nouveau chez-soi » dans la vie des personnes âgées : une étude de cas dans un milieu rural fragile du Nouveau-Brunswick
Abstract: À l’instar des autres provinces canadiennes, le Nouveau-Brunswick est particulièrement affecté par le vieillissement de sa population. Si les conséquences négatives liées à ce phénomène ont retenu l’attention de plusieurs chercheurs, force est de reconnaître que les impacts positifs du vieillissement en matière de développement territorial ont fait l’objet d’un nombre beaucoup plus réduit de travaux. Le but de cet article consiste, à partir de quatre notions centrales dans le domaine du développement territori… Show more
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Cited by 2 publications
References 6 publications
Research context : This article takes on the point of view that places the focus on the individual, despite belonging within a family group, and explores the concept of home as a space that contributes to the formation of an “individualized individual,” but that also takes into account the possible limits of this function of home. Objectives : This overview aims to define the concept of home in order to identify all of its dimensions. While the spatial, temporal and relational dimensions of home can be distinguished for the purposes of analysis, on the one hand, the article aims to show how they are intimately articulated in the experiences of individuals to support the construction of their personal identity, their autonomy, their self-empowerment and their relationship to location or place (Simard and Savoie, 2009); and how they are closely linked in the construction of groups and family relationships. Methodology : This article is based on a literature review and on the contributions to this issue to present the concept of home and the theoretical perspective taken. Results : In family, marital and intergenerational cohabitation, the construction of home is played out in interaction with other family members, who also have their own constructions and conceptions of home. These constructions and understandings produce differentiated and sometimes asymmetrical relationships, as well as three different experiences of home. The first refers to personal spaces, “at my home”; the second, to the rules and laws that govern cohabitation and the space in which home is located. In this case, it is defined by a statutory and hierarchical aspect, and the individual has a place assigned by his status. This is designated as “at my parent’s home.” The third is represented by belonging and by a place in a group or community where the individual is considered equal. This is belonging to “our home”. If the first “home” is the main factor in the process of individualization, so are the other two: one explains the boundaries of the “home,” and the other, the individual's belonging to the group, especially the family. Conclusions : The question of home leads to two aspects: the relationship with home of the sole inhabitant and the relationship with home of the inhabitant together with others . In this second aspect, there is a tension between a logic of autonomy and a logic of belonging as a member of the group. Being a member of the group, interpreted as being at our home, has two dimensions: being assigned to our home and belonging to our home. In this sense, our home acts as a constraint on the concept of home, and the family appears to be a paradoxical validation of the individual. Thus, the family has a dual function: to make it possible to be oneself (by privileging personal spaces and validating individual dimensions of identity) and to acknowledge that each member belongs to the group and has a place in it . The limits of the individualization of the home become apparent when there is an imbalance among these three aspects of “home”: having a personal space, being assigned within our home, and belonging to our home. Contribution: Home is a valuable perspective in this construction, which links the past, present and future: having been, being and becoming. The iterative movement between home and identity is central to the formation of the individual and the family group.
Research context : This article takes on the point of view that places the focus on the individual, despite belonging within a family group, and explores the concept of home as a space that contributes to the formation of an “individualized individual,” but that also takes into account the possible limits of this function of home. Objectives : This overview aims to define the concept of home in order to identify all of its dimensions. While the spatial, temporal and relational dimensions of home can be distinguished for the purposes of analysis, on the one hand, the article aims to show how they are intimately articulated in the experiences of individuals to support the construction of their personal identity, their autonomy, their self-empowerment and their relationship to location or place (Simard and Savoie, 2009); and how they are closely linked in the construction of groups and family relationships. Methodology : This article is based on a literature review and on the contributions to this issue to present the concept of home and the theoretical perspective taken. Results : In family, marital and intergenerational cohabitation, the construction of home is played out in interaction with other family members, who also have their own constructions and conceptions of home. These constructions and understandings produce differentiated and sometimes asymmetrical relationships, as well as three different experiences of home. The first refers to personal spaces, “at my home”; the second, to the rules and laws that govern cohabitation and the space in which home is located. In this case, it is defined by a statutory and hierarchical aspect, and the individual has a place assigned by his status. This is designated as “at my parent’s home.” The third is represented by belonging and by a place in a group or community where the individual is considered equal. This is belonging to “our home”. If the first “home” is the main factor in the process of individualization, so are the other two: one explains the boundaries of the “home,” and the other, the individual's belonging to the group, especially the family. Conclusions : The question of home leads to two aspects: the relationship with home of the sole inhabitant and the relationship with home of the inhabitant together with others . In this second aspect, there is a tension between a logic of autonomy and a logic of belonging as a member of the group. Being a member of the group, interpreted as being at our home, has two dimensions: being assigned to our home and belonging to our home. In this sense, our home acts as a constraint on the concept of home, and the family appears to be a paradoxical validation of the individual. Thus, the family has a dual function: to make it possible to be oneself (by privileging personal spaces and validating individual dimensions of identity) and to acknowledge that each member belongs to the group and has a place in it . The limits of the individualization of the home become apparent when there is an imbalance among these three aspects of “home”: having a personal space, being assigned within our home, and belonging to our home. Contribution: Home is a valuable perspective in this construction, which links the past, present and future: having been, being and becoming. The iterative movement between home and identity is central to the formation of the individual and the family group.
Cadre de la recherche : Dans une perspective qui met au centre l’individu - bien qu’inscrit dans des groupes notamment familiaux - cet article propose d’analyser le chez-soi comme un espace qui intervient dans la construction d’un « individu individualisé » et envisage en même temps les limites qui peuvent être observées à cette fonction du chez-soi. Objectifs : Cette introduction vise à définir la notion de chez-soi pour en dégager toutes les dimensions. Si les dimensions spatiales, temporelles et relationnelles du chez-soi peuvent être distinguées pour les besoins de l’analyse, l’article s’attache à montrer comment elles sont intimement articulées d’une part, dans l’expérience des individus pour soutenir la construction de leur identité personnelle, de leur autonomie, de leur pouvoir sur eux-mêmes et leur rapport au territoire (Simard and Savoie, 2009) ; d’autre part, dans la construction des groupes et des relations familiales. Méthodologie : Cet article s’appuie sur une revue de littérature et sur les différentes contributions du numéro pour présenter la notion du chez-soi et la perspective théorique empruntée. Résultats : Dans la cohabitation familiale, conjugale et intergénérationnelle, la construction du chez-soi se joue dans des rapports d’interaction avec les autres membres de la famille qui ont également leur propre construction et conception du chez-soi. Ces constructions et conceptions produisent par là même des rapports différenciés et parfois dissymétriques ainsi que trois expériences différentes de chez-soi. Le premier chez-soi renvoie aux territoires personnels, le « chez-moi » ; le deuxième aux règles et aux lois qui régissent une cohabitation et l’espace dans lequel est inséré le chez-soi. Dans ce cas, il est défini par un aspect statutaire et hiérarchique, l’individu a une place assignée par son statut. C’est un chez-nous-assignation. Enfin, le troisième s’incarne par une appartenance et une place dans un groupe ou une communauté où l’individu est considéré comme égal. C’est un chez-nous appartenances. Si le premier « chez » est principal dans le processus d’individualisation, tout autant le sont les deux autres qui amènent, d’une part, à la mise au jour des limites du « chez-moi », d’autre part, à la question de l’inscription de l’individu dans le groupe, notamment familial. Conclusions : La question du chez-soi amène à considérer deux aspects : le rapport de l’habitant seul au chez-soi et le rapport de l’habitant avec au chez-soi. Dans ce deuxième aspect, il se construit dans une tension entre une logique d’autonomie et une logique d’appartenance comme membre du groupe. Dans cette deuxième logique, être membre du groupe que nous traduisons par chez-nous relève de deux dimensions : le chez-nous-assignation et le chez-nous-appartenances. En ce sens, le chez-nous contraint le chez-soi et la famille apparaît comme une instance paradoxale de validation de l’individu. Elle a donc une double fonction, celle de permettre d’être soi (favoriser les espaces personnels et valider les dimensions individuelles de l’identité) et aussi de reconnaitre à chacun de ses membres un être à sa place dans le groupe et un y avoir sa place. Les limites à l’individualisation du chez-soi s’observent quand un déséquilibre existe entre ces trois « chez », territoires personnels, chez-nous-assignation et chez-nous-appartenances. Contribution : Le chez-soi est un observatoire précieux de cette construction qui se décline au passé, présent et futur en interaction : avoir été, être et devenir. Le mouvement itératif entre le chez-soi et l’identité est substantiel à la construction de l’individu et du groupe familial.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
Contact Info
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Product
Resources
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.
