Constructions of spirituality in contemporary nursing theory

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The nursing literature on spirituality tends to agree that modern science is relatively powerless to address the loss of personal meaning experienced by people facing death, suffering and loss. As a remedy, the literature recommends addressing patients' spirituality. The typical analytical move is to distinguish spirituality from religion and consider it a part, dimension or property of the patient. AIM AND METHOD: This paper uses discourse analysis to identify the formal properties of scientific and religious discourses and their social and political implications. The nursing literature is then investigated to detect the use of such discourses in constructing the object spirituality and to consider any implications for nursing as a social practice. FINDINGS: Far from escaping science and religion, the literature constructs spirituality by means of scientific and religious discourses. These discourses have characteristic strengths and weaknesses that the nursing literature seems to miss. Accordingly, its use of religious discourse lacks coherence and depth, and risks merging human with transcendent authority. Its use of scientific discourse lacks precision and clarity and risks intensifying those features of modernity which contribute to a loss of personal meaning in the face of death, suffering and loss. CONCLUSION: Nursing literature on spirituality raises important questions but is limited in its capacity to address them. This paper provides an alternative perspective. First, it draws on an analysis of the modern institutional environment and its existential dimension. Secondly, it applies discourse analysis to the task of helping people experiencing illness and injury. This approach respects the strengths and limitations of both scientific and religious discourses.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 76 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.