Maus tratos na infância e relação com a memória, a afectidade negativa e positiva

RESUMO: A presente investigação tem por objectivo estudar a relação entre os maus tratos na infância, a memória, e a afectividade negativa e positiva, em jovens residentes (N=55) em diversos LIJ e RA de duas Instituições da Grande Lisboa, comparando-os com um grupo de controlo (N= 39), de duas Escolas, uma Básica e outra Secundária, também da Grande Lisboa. Foram recolhidas respostas de 47 rapazes e 47 raparigas entre os 12 e os 16 anos, com uma média etária de 14.47 (DP= 1.37). As medidas utilizadas foram a Figura Complexa de Rey, para avaliação da Memória e o PANAS C, para a Afectividade Negativa e Positiva. A análise dos dados permitiu concluir que existem diferenças estatisticamente significativas entre os dois grupos para as dimensões em estudo, tendo piores resultados os jovens que sofreram maus tratos na infância o que corrobora a literatura sobre os danos causados por aqueles, a nível do sistema límbico, sede da afectividade e da memória. ABSTRACT: The present investigation aims at studying the relation between maltreatment in childhood, memory, negative and positive affectivity in youngsters (N=55) living in several Childhood and Youth Homes, as well as in Host Residences of two Institutions located in Greater Lisbon, in comparison to a control group (N=39) of two Schools, an Elementary School and a High School, also located in Greater Lisbon. Answers have been collected from 47 boys and 47 girls, between 12 and 16 years old, with an average range of 14.47 years old (SD= 1.37). The measures used were the Rey Complex Figure, for Memory assessment and PANAS C, for Positive and Negative Affectivity. The data analysis has enabled to conclude that there are statistically significant differences between these two groups for the dimensions in study, having worst results the youngsters that have suffered from maltreatment, confirming the reading about damages caused by it, at limbic system level, the seat of affectivity and memory.

Who am I? An identity crisis Identity in the new museologies and the role of the museum professional

Whilst the title of this essay suggests more than one “new museology”, it was rather a licence poétique to emphasize the two major theoretical movements that have evolved in the second half of the 20th Century[1]. As a result of the place(s)/contexts where they originated, and for clarity purposes, they have been labelled in this essay as the “Latin new museology” and the “Anglo-Saxon new museology”; however they both identify themselves by just the name of “New Museology”. Even though they both shared similar ideas on participation and inclusion, the language barriers were probably the cause for many ideas not to be fully shared by both groups. The “Latin New museology” was the outcome of a specific context that started in the 1960s (de Varine 1996); being a product of the “Second Museum Revolution”(1970s)[2], it provided new perceptions of heritage, such as “common heritage”. In 1972 ICOM organized the Santiago Round Table, which advocated for museums to engage with the communities they serve, assigning them a role of “problem solvers” within the community (Primo 1999:66). These ideas lead to the concept of the Integral Museum. The Quebec Declaration in 1984 declared that a museum’s aim should be community development and not only “the preservation of past civilisations’ material artefacts”, followed by the Oaxtepec Declaration that claimed for the relationship between territory-heritage-community to be indissoluble (Primo 1999: 69). Finally, in 1992, the Caracas Declaration argued for the museum to “take the responsibility as a social manager reflecting the community’s interests”(Primo 1999: 71). [1] There have been at least three different applications of the term ( Peter van Mensch cited in Mason: 23) [2] According to Santos Primo, this Second Museum Revolution was the result of the Santiago Round Table in Chile, 1972, and furthered by the 1st New Museology International Workshop (Quebec, 1984), Oaxtepec Meeting (Mexico, 1984) and the Caracas Meeting (Venezuela, 1992) (Santos Primo : 63-64)