No description available.

No description available.

Thesis (M.S.)--Florida State University, 2005. / Advisor: Sandra Faria, Florida State University, School of Nursing. Title and description from dissertation home page (viewed Feb.1, 2006). Document formatted into pages; contains x, 133 pages. Includes bibliographical references.

壓力方面的研究，雖然自Hans Sely開始，在心理學中即佔有相當的份量。西方學者eE.fromm;N.W Ross;W.Barrett;E.Herrigel 等人，或採哲學的觀點，或運用了心理學的方法，對靜坐加以分析研究，結果亦相當可觀。 但是純以靜坐技術來解決組織壓力的研究卻極為罕見，尤其是國內的研究，幾乎可以說是完全空白。基於組織壓車對於組織整體及個人造成的嚴重損失，已不容再忽視，並且由於靜坐技術的發展歷史甚為久遠，內容及效果對人類心理具有立即且明顯的影響，所以針對組織壓力與靜坐技術予以深入探討。 近年來西方學者對於由牛頓物理學所形成的典範，經由愛因斯坦的相對論及海森堡的量子物理的出現，漸漸無法解釋許多自然及社會的現象，而新物理學，乃至新生物學的誕生，也使得新的典範逐漸成形。新典範所發展出的心物一元世界觀，亦是組織壓力和靜坐技術彼此聯結的最好詮釋觀點。 中山先生早在民國初年的演講中，就已明白指出心物合一的論點，由此可知中山先生確實是其有遠見學者。 本論文在結構上，是先敘述靜坐技術的發展歷史，再介紹組織壓力的相關理論，並整合目前解決組織壓力的各種策略，配合靜坐技術加以研究。主要的研究方法，是以文獻研究作為研究途徑。

Focusing on Sweden between 1950 and 1980, this doctoral dissertation analyzes and problematizes the process in which a discourse about neurosis and nervous troubles gradually evolved into a discourse about stress. The thesis aims to show how the medical and general discussion about diffuse or vague symptoms transformed and rearticulated ideas and views on society and man, citizenship, gender roles, and medicine. It shows how the discourse on neuroses tended to locate sickness and deviance in the individual, whereas its subsequent transformation into a discourse on stress located the pathological in an external, societal sphere. A particularly prominent issue in the study concerns the role that gender, and in particular female gender, has played in these discourses, and how the place of the feminine can be understood in relation to stress and neuroses. The dissertation shows that female gender was not central to the discourse on neuroses and stress  during the studied period. On the contrary, gender was subordinated to ideas about man and citizenship within the greater context of society and culture. The dissertation takes its starting point in the Swedish 1950’s, often characterized as the era of ”The Strong Society” or ”The People’s Home”. During this period, the neurosis discourse was fixed and remained unchanged. In practice, neurosis was a diagnosis that provided such symptoms that were otherwise difficult to measure and assess with a theory of origin. Neuroses were believed to principally affect a certain category of individuals, who, due to their constitution or disposition, were held to be particularly susceptible to neurotic sufferings. During the 1960s the belief in The Strong Society and its notion of ideal citizenship began to crumble. It was against this background that the Swedish medical profession started discussing ”stress”. Stress, in contrast, could afflict anyone and everyone, according to “the father of stress” Hans Selye and Swedish stress researchers. Stress was assumed to be a potential cause of ”nervous troubles” and disease, but was never considered to be a disease in itself. The concept of the individual as a citizen now gave way for the notion of the individual as a primarily biological organism. Within the stress discourse in the 1960s, the primacy of the universal normal (male) man was a recurring focal point. In the 1970s, the stress researchers distanced themselves from Selyes’ concept of stress by focusing on individual factors. In the discussion about stress during the 1970s, the ”constitutionally weak” individual of the 1950s and the biological organism of the 1960s blended into a hybrid construction of a unique, biological individual.