Advertisement

Social Theory & Health

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 414–435 | Cite as

Psychiatry’s little other: DSM-5 and debates over psychiatric science

  • Claire Laurier DecoteauEmail author
  • Paige L. Sweet
Original Article

Abstract

In 2013, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) broke rank with the American Psychiatric Association (APA) over the release of DSM-5, psychiatry’s ‘bible’ of mental disorders. Announcing that it would use its own biological categorization system in place of DSM-5, NIMH ignited a debate about the nature of psychiatric epistemology. We analyze these DSM-5 debates as a critical moment in psychiatry’s history of epistemological ‘revolutions.’ Psychiatric pioneers, throughout the field’s history, have presumed that biological dysfunction anchored mental disorders, and yet locating biological cause has proved elusive. Each time its failure to secure biological cause is unveiled, psychiatric experts reinvent the field in the image of greater scienticity. Using psychoanalytic theory, we argue that biology operates as Lacan’s objet petit a. The field of psychiatry is propelled forward by a mismatch between its imaginary identification as an objective science and its fragmented actuality as a symbolic system. Despite their attempts to repress the field’s fragmentation, leaders in psychiatry continuously bump into their failure to elucidate the biological foundation of mental disorders, compelling them to reiterate psychiatry’s fantasy identifications, now through imagery of the ‘mysterious’ brain.

Keywords

psychiatry DSM knowledge psychoanalysis ‘neuro’ 

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). DSM 5: Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell, V. (2013). News from the borders of mental illness. The Guardian, April 6, URL (consulted March 14 2014): http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/apr/07/borders-mental-illness-diagnosis-vaughan-bell
  3. Bracken, P., et al (2012). Psychiatry beyond the current paradigm. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 201, 430–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brean, J. (2013). Do these really exist in nature or not?: Latest edition of psychiatry’s diagnostic manual draws fierce criticism. National Post, August 5, URL: (consulted March 2014): http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/08/05/do-these-really-exist-in-nature-or-not-latest-edition-of-psychiatrys-diagnostic-manual-draws-fierce-criticism/
  5. Callard, F. (2014). Psychiatric diagnosis: The indispensability of ambivalence. Journal of Medical Ethics, 2014, 1–5.Google Scholar
  6. Casey, B. J., Craddock, N., Cuthbert, B. N., Hyman, S. E., Lee, F. S., & Ressler, K. J. (2013). DSM-5 and RDoC: Progress in psychiatry research? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 810–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cassels, C. (2013). DSM-5 officially launched, but controversy persists. Medscape, May 1, URL (consulted March 2014): http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/804410
  8. Coalition for DSM-5 Reform. (2011). Open letter to the DSM-5 Task Force. URL (consulted March 2014): http://dsm5-reform.com/the-open-letter-to-dsm-5-task-force/
  9. Cobb, W. S. (1993). The symposium and the Phaedrus: Plato’s erotic dialogues. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cuthbert, B., & Insel, T. (2010). The data of diagnosis: New approaches to psychiatric classification. Psychiatry, 73(4), 311–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fernyhough, C. (2013). Is memory just a leaky reconstruction? The Guardian, April 27, URL (consulted March 2014): http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/apr/26/charles-fernyhough-memory-leaky-construction
  12. Frances, A. (2013). Saving normal: An insider’s revolt against out-of-control psychiatric diagnosis, DSM-5, big pharma, and the medicalization of ordinary life. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  13. Greenberg, G. (2013). The book of woe: The DSM and the unmaking of psychiatry. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  14. Hall, S. (1996). Who needs identity? In S. Hall & P. du Gay (Eds.), Questions of cultural identity (pp. 1–17). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Hedgecoe, A. (2001). Schizophrenia and the narrative of enlightened geneticization. Social Studies of Science, 31(6), 875–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Horwitz, A. V. (2002). Creating mental illness. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Insel, T., & Cuthbert, B. (2009). Endophenotypes: Bridging genomic complexity and disorder heterogeneity. Biological Psychiatry, 66(11), 988–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Insel, T. and Lieberman, J. (2013). DSM-5 and RDoC: Shared interests. Press Release, May 13, URL (consulted March 2014): http://www.nimh.nih.gov/news/science-news/2013/dsm-5-and-rdoc-shared-interests.shtml
  19. Kutchins, H., & Kirk, S. A. (1997). Making us crazy: DSM: The psychiatric bible and the creation of mental disorders. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lacan, J. (1949/1977). The mirror state as formative of the function of the I as revealed in psychoanalytic experience (pp. 1–7 in Ecrits: A Selection). New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  21. Lacan, J. (1965). Seminar of Jacques Lacan, XII: Crucial problems for psychoanalysis, 1964–1965. http://esource.dbs.ie/bitstream/handle/10788/161/Book-12-Crucial-problems-for-psychoanalysis.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed June 2, 2016).
  22. Lacan, J. (1988). The seminar, book I: Freud’s papers on technique, 1953–1954. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  23. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  24. Luhrmann, T. M. (2000). Of two minds: The growing disorder in American Psychiatry. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  25. McHugh, P. R. (2009). Psychiatry at Stalemate. The DANA foundation, October 13, URL (consulted March 2014): http://www.dana.org/Cerebrum/Default.aspx?id=39422.
  26. Metzl, J. M. (2003). Prozac on the couch: Prescribing gender in the era of wonder drugs. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moncrieff, J., & Crawford, M. J. (2001). British psychiatry in the 20th century—observations from a psychiatric journal. Social Science & Medicine, 53(3), 349–356.Google Scholar
  28. National Institute of Mental Health. (2011). NIMH research domain criteria (RDoC). URL (consulted February 2104): http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research-priorities/rdoc/nimh-research-domain-criteria-rdoc.shtml#toc_background
  29. Pappas, S. (2013). National Institute Of Mental Health To Drop DSM Use. Huffington Post, May 3, URL (consulted March 2014): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/national-institute-of-mental-health-dsm-use_n_3211440.html
  30. Peele, S. (2013). The search for mental illness and addiction in the Brain, Part II: Why are the human psyche and behavior so complicated? Huffington Post, May 21, URL (consulted March 2014): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stanton-peele/obama-brain-initiative_b_3295513.html
  31. Pickersgill, M. D. (2010). Psyche, soma, and science studies: New directions in the sociology of mental health and illness. Journal of Mental Health, 19(4), 382–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pickersgill, M. D. (2013a). Debating DSM-5: Diagnosis and the sociology of critique. Journal of Medical Ethics, 40, 1–5.Google Scholar
  33. Pickersgill, M. D. (2013b). What is psychiatry? Co-producing complexity in mental health. Social Theory & Health, 10(4), 328–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pilgrim, D. (2007). The survival of psychiatric diagnosis. Social Science and Medicine, 65, 536–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pilgrim, D. (2014). Influencing mental health policy and planning: DSM-5 as a disciplinary challenge for psychology. Review of General Psychology, 18(4), 293–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pitts-Taylor, V. (2010). The plastic brain: Neoliberalism and the neuronal self. Health, 14, 635–652.Google Scholar
  37. Rose, N. (2013). The human sciences in a biological age. Theory, Culture & Society, 30(1), 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rose, N., & Abi-Rached, J. M. (2013). Neuro: The new brain sciences and the management of the mind. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Rosenberg, C. E. (2006). Contested boundaries: Psychiatry, disease, and diagnosis. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 49(3), 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stevenson, T. (2013). Mind field. The Financial Times, May 24, URL (consulted March 2014): http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/25391482-c2f5-11e2-bbbd-00144feab7de.html#axzz3EvCaqcDH
  41. Strand, M. (2011). Where do classifications come from? The DSM-III, the transformation of American psychiatry, and the problem of origins in the sociology of knowledge. Theory and Society, 40, 273–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Voosen, P. (2013). A revolution in mental health. The chronicle of higher education, September 9, URL (consulted March 2014): http://chronicle.com/article/A-Revolution-in-Mental-Health/141379
  43. Whooley, O. (2010). Diagnostic ambivalence: psychiatric workaround and the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Sociology of Health & Illness, 32, 452–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Whooley, O. (2014). Nosological reflections: The failure of DSM-5, the emergence of RDoC, and the decontextualization of mental distress. Society & Mental Health, 4(2), 92–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yan, J. (2010). NIMH builds new framework for understanding mental illness. Psychiatric News, May 21, URL (consulted March 2014): http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/newsArticle.aspx?articleid=113434
  46. Young, A. (1995). The harmony of illusion: Inventing post-traumatic stress disorder. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Žižek, S. (1989). The sublime object of ideology. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  48. Žižek, S. (1997). The plague of fantasies. London: Verso.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations