DSM drama

So, with our discussion of the construction of mental illness, there is a fascinating article by psychology today on the subject of the changes that will be made within the new DSM-5. Since some would argue that mental illness is purely a construction, then these changes are a simple reconstruction of mental illness. If there is more to mental illness than just construction, where mental illness does correspond to some kind of reality, then these changes could be catastrophic.

For example, classifying grief as clinical depression implies that there is something wrong, or bad for grieving. By claiming this, grief for a lost spouse, parent, or child can now be considered a mental illness. This brings up interesting questions on what a normal functional human. Is a normal functional human someone who is always content and happy? Or is a functional human someone who experiences sorrow and crippling despair along with happiness?

By constructing this new definition of depression, the DSM is claiming that experiencing grief is not a proper function of human behavior. What are other's opinions on this?

Constructivist magazine starring our wonderful professor.

So, I am doing a project on constructivistic psychotherapy, and as I was researching this topic, I stumbled upon a magazine devoted to philosophical constructivism. And in one of these journals, they have an article written by our incredibly inspiring professor. He posted an excerpt of this article on his blog, but here one can read the full thing. Now, in order to read it, one needs an account, but one can choose to have a free account. Also, there is a response to our professor's article as well which has some interesting insights, which one should read as well.

Constructions of Mental illness

So, if any of you haven't heard, the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or the DSM-5 has finally been finalized! This is the therapists and psychiatrists bible, as it describes the symptoms and proper diagnostic criteria of mental disorders, and the previous DSM-4 was severely flawed. However, it seems that not everybody is that excited about this, as shown here. A lot of criticism has been running around about how the DSM will only benefit the pharmaceutical companies and that it will have no impact on psychologists or therapists in any manner whatsoever. A quote that properly sums up the criticism was released on the blog Mindhacks, where I first heard of the release:

"It’s arcane, contradictory and talks about invisible entities which no-one can really prove. Yes folks, the new psychiatric bible has been finalised." (article can be found here.)

There is a lot of debate in the mental health field about what exactly are mental illnesses. Some argue that mental illness is an objective part of reality, just as real as any other illness such as cancer or the common cold. This is called the medical model. In this model, there is an objective existence of depression, psychosis, and autism. The DSM promotes this model. However, some reject this idea, claiming that mental illness is actually a social construct. Some people argue it in degrees, saying that the way we view normality and abnormality influences what we classify as abnormal, but that some of these people actually do have a mental illness. On the other hand, some people completely reject the idea of mental illness at all. One psychiatrist, by the name of Thomas Szasz wrote a book called 'The Myth of Mental Illness.' It is exactly as it sounds. Szasz argued that mental illness was only a societal construct and that psychiatry was a pseudoscience because of it. Although I disagree with him, he did revolutionize the psychological world with his work and brought into light many flaws with the traditional view of the world.

Szasz would have fought tooth and nail against this new DSM, for it tries to pass off a social construct as an objective reality which only ends up hurting those labeled as abnormal. Although I believe the DSM is flawed and will probably always be flawed, I would not agree with Szasz that psychiatry is a pseudoscience. I would argue that the DSM highlights the typical symptoms shown in people who are unhappy, maladaptive to the environment, or a danger to themselves and others. I would not force such labels on anyone, but I would follow to some extent the advice that such a manual can offer me about how to treat such people.