精神醫療是國家對人口治理的重要一環，現今精神機構不再只是發揮收容、排除或僅是治療精神疾患者的功能，精神機構的去機構化以及如何讓住在精神療養院的人們能夠回歸社會，已成為現代精神醫療政策的官方目標。
社區復健中心便是在此官方目標下誕生，此機構內部的意義架構詮釋為透過醫療、工作訓練、社群、上課等多元的方法協助學員（精神醫療使用者）建立生活感以及回歸社會。以回歸社會為政策目標，工作模式在社區復健中心扮演了重要的中介角色，但以工作為媒介促使學員回歸社會的目標，不僅是純粹專業領域的一項精神醫療判定與精神治療，其涉及複雜的社會安排過程。
本研究即試圖回答社區復健中心如何成為一個使學員擔任勞動角色卻和其所指稱之協助學員回歸社會的目標不完全一致的特殊空間，以及這個特殊空間如何形塑學員的生命經驗。
本文從台灣復健機構的成立脈絡中發現職能治療專業化扮演了重要角色，職能治療學科內部強調的工作訓練形塑了復健中心對於精神復健的想像，為了達成學員能夠回歸社會的政策目標，工作在此機構內部則重新安排成一個新的意義詮釋架構，並由此展開一個特殊的社會生活形式。社區復健中心以勞動模式做為中介來達成協助學員回歸社會的目標，以及精神醫療與勞動的判定關係之間，展現了一個矛盾且複雜的過程。此文也進一步與高夫曼對於人們依附社會實體的觀點進行對話，並延伸了流離、機會與依附的三個概念來指出學員是否回歸社會與其依附復健機構的程度有關。

The idea of psychiatry has been an important role in modern states’ governance. Nowadays, psychiatric institutes contain functions in not only sheltering, excluding, or curing patients with mental illness; aside from tasks mentioned above, the focuses on how to deinstitutionalize psychiatric institutes and assist patients back to society have become official goals of modern psychiatric policies.
Community psychiatric rehabilitation centers, as results responding to these official goals, were organized with dynamic measures including offering clinical interventions, job training plans, social support and related courses to those so-called “trainees” (mental health services users,) in order to bring up trainees’ sense of life and fulfill trainees’ return to society. Under the core purpose concerning “back to society,” work rehabilitation programs become a vital intermediary in community psychiatric rehabilitation centers. Nevertheless, work rehabilitation programs as means for assisting patients’ return to society are not simply associated with psychiatric-professional determination and clinical interventions. A complex social arrangement process is also required.
This thesis aims to address why a community psychiatric rehabilitation center becomes a special space regarding the divide between trainees’ work conditions among work rehabilitation programs and official goals for facilitating trainees’ return to society. Furthermore, how a community psychiatric rehabilitation center influences trainees’ life experiences would be explored.
By investigating the establishment of community psychiatric rehabilitation centers in Taiwan, professionalization of occupational therapy is emphasized: the phase of job training, highly concerned in occupational-therapy field, further develops cognition to the idea of psychiatric rehabilitation in community psychiatric rehabilitation centers. To achieve official goals known as “back to society,” working is considered a new interpretative framework that forms unique social lives for trainees in community psychiatric rehabilitation centers. The intermediary role that working plays in order to fulfill trainees’ return to society, and the correlation between manual labour as well as psychiatry concepts contribute to a complex dilemma found in community psychiatric rehabilitation centers.
In addition, this thesis draws connections from Erving Goffman's approach on social substance as attachment figures, and extends the concept of displacing, chance, and attachment, to further examine the relevance between trainees’ return to society and their attachment to psychiatric institutions.

一、 中文部分
Arthur Kleiman, M.D.著、卓惠譯，2020，《談病說痛：在受苦經驗中看見療癒》。新北，心靈工坊。（Arthur Kleiman, M.D. The Illness Narratives: Suffering, Healing and the Human Condition. New York :Basic Books）

Foucault, Michel著、林志明譯，2016，《古典時代瘋狂史》。台北：時報。（Foucault, Michel, 1961, Histoire de la folie à l'âge classique. Paris : Plon）

Foucault, Michel 著、劉北成等譯，1992，《規訓與懲罰》。台北：桂冠。（Foucault, Michel,1975,Surveiller et punir:Naissance de la prison.Paris：Plon）

Goffman, Earving著、群學翻譯工作室譯，2012，《精神病院：論精神病患與其它被收容者的處境》。台北：群學。（Goffman, Erving, 1961, Asylum: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. New York: Anchor Books.）

Roy Poter著、王文基譯，2004，《瘋狂簡史》。新北：左岸文化。（Roy Poter, 2002,Madeness:,A Brief History. London: Oxford University）

Taylor Barbara著、黃佳瑜譯，2017，《精神病院裡的歷史學家：我經歷的瘋狂歲月，以及時代如何安置我們的瘋狂》。新北：木馬文化。（Taylor, Barbara,2015,The Last Asylum: A Memoir of Madeness in Our Times. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.）

呂碧華，2006，〈心理職能治療簡介〉。頁45-48，收錄於台灣省職能治療師公會編，《職能治療：跨越障礙，發揮潛能》。台北：心理。

林宗義，1990，《精神醫學之路》。台北：稻鄉。

吳嘉苓，2000，〈台灣助產士興衰〉。《台灣社會學研究》，4，191-268。

柯廷諭，2019 ，《為什麽人們願意住進精神病院》。新竹，清華大學社會學研究所碩士論文。

傅大為，2018，〈從批判到協商的迂迴路〉。頁9-12，收錄於蔡友月、陳嘉新編，《不正常的人？精神醫學與人文社會科學的跨界、交流與反思》。新北：聯經

曾凡慈，2018，〈邊界模糊的診斷—注意力缺失／過動症的臨床實作〉。頁81-126 ，收錄於蔡友月、陳嘉新編，《不正常的人？精神醫學與人文社會科學的跨界、交流與反思》。新北：聯經。

黃嬡齡，2008，《日久他鄉是故鄉—治療性社區玉里模式》。台北，記憶工程。

湯家碩，2018，〈龍發堂與台灣現代精神醫療，1980-1990〉。頁459-503，收錄於蔡友月、陳嘉新編，《不正常的人？精神醫學與人文社會科學的跨界、交流與反思》。新北：聯經。

蔡友月、陳嘉新，2018，〈不正常的人？精神醫學與人文社會科學的跨界、交流與反思〉。頁21-80，收錄於蔡友月、陳嘉新編，《不正常的人？精神醫學與人文社會科學的跨界、交流與反思》。新北：聯經。

劉運康，1984，〈慢性精神科個案之社會復歸：談去機構化與現代精神醫院之社區化〉。《職能治療學會雜誌》2:11-17 。

二、 英文部分
Foucault, Michel, 1980c, “The Politics of Health in the Eighteenth Century.” Pp. 166- 182 in Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews & Other Writings 1972-1977, edited by Colin Gordon. New York: Pantheon Books.

Geoffrey C. Bowker and Susan Leigh Star, 2000, “The ICD as Information Infrastructure”:Sorting things out:Classification and its consequence. London:MIT press.

Goffman, Erving, 1961, Asylum: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Garden City: Anchor Books.

Kathy Charmaz, 1991, Good Days, Bad Day:The Self in Chronic Illness and Time. Rutgers University Press.

Nanna Mik-Meyer and Annne Roelsgaard Obling,2012,”The negotitation of the sickrole: general practioners’classification of patients with medically unexplained symptoms” Sociology of Health & Illness 34(7):1025-1038.

Szasz, Thomas S, 1970, The Manufacture of Madeness. New York:Harper & Row Publisher.