The paradox is that embracing post-structural thought forces nurses to think critically, yet the outcome of that thinking is not predetermined and may prove 'dangerous,' unraveling nurses' cherished ideologies rather than confirming them.

Continental, post-structural theory is critical but not normative or prescriptive; it defies drawing moralistic conclusions. So when nurses embrace it, critique can lead in unpredictable directions, potentially undermining core nursing ideals such as humanistic assumptions, the autonomous subject, and even the view of nurses as downtrodden. In other words, post-structural thinking impels nurses to question, but the answers may destabilize the very values nursing holds dear.

Key points

Post-structural theory propels nurses to think critically.
The outcome of such thinking is not predetermined and may be 'dangerous.'
It defies drawing moralistic or reassuring conclusions.
It can unravel nurses' cherished ideologies and humanistic assumptions.
It may challenge ideas of the autonomous nurse and patient as well as nurses' self-understanding.

What paradox arises when embracing post-structural thought in nursing, according to the text?

Related questions