"Silence is Golden": 'governvocality' Behind the Scenes of Selective Mutism

Abstract (English)

The intricate and contested relationship between care and responsibility within health and healing practices, and the ambiguities in defining what responsibility consists of in this setting, are issues firmly demonstrated through the research I've conducted.
In many parts of our world, neoliberalism and capitalism emerge from every corner and in every domain. We exist in an era of universal well-being where many people and institutions arrive with 'good intentions' and want to ensure the emotional-social welfare of individuals. Being 'active' is a central ideal in contemporary Western neoliberal society. Accordingly, the ideal to 'express yourself' through vocal speech is a way to demonstrate activity meant to benefit the person. speech is a preferred and uncompromising requirement. This is the background scene of the pathological approach toward the phenomenon of selective mutism that I focused on through my research.
. Based on Byron Good, Arthur Kleinman, Carol Kidron, Michelle Rosaldo, and Jack Katz, who see the need to expand the medical paradigm beyond the narrow biological model toward one that contains cultural, social, and narrative aspects of illness, my research sought to use a qualitative lens enabling subjective voice to selective mutes themselves. Accordingly, it opens an alternative discourse to the "framed" universal-objective biomedical discourse.
The perception of silence is viewed as pathological mutism, a behavior of emotional-mental illness that must be corrected and cured. the motivation follows universal beneficial well-being thinking - to help the mute individual integrate into the neo-liberal order and meet its demands, for which one must speak and communicate to be active, attractive, and productive.
My Research reveals complex dynamics between silent individuals and socialization agents and a pharmacological approach full of ambiguities and contradictions - a 'therapeutic' Sisyphean conduct by both parents, psychiatrists and psychologists, who operate with a manifesto of 'good intentions', alongside a body of professional knowledge.
The narratives reveal how attempts to "cure" selective mutism actually produce counterproductive effects and contribute to silencing. The silencing of the mute is one of the most severe side effects of socialization agents' conduct. These attempts fail, the periods of silence lengthen, and it seems that the body increasingly withdraws into itself, distancing the silent person from interaction.
In attempting to understand the subjective experience of selective silence, the selective mute interviewees describe a functional, conscious, deliberate silence with various types of capital - an 'embodied silence' that undermines pathological mutism and raises numerous questions and insights: What 'power' does parenthood give to parents in the health domain of their children? What is parental responsibility? Is there parental conduct that is 'necessary'? 'Legitimate'? What are the parameters for this? Does dialogue with children exist? When do children receive some autonomy over their physical and emotional well-being?