Abstract
The ability to (re)classify populations is a key component of state power, but not all new state classifications actually succeed in changing how people are categorized and governed. This article examines the French state’s partly unsuccessful project in 2005 to use a new classification—“psychic handicap”—to ensure that people with severe mental disorders received services and benefits from separate agencies based on a designation of being both “mentally ill” and “disabled.” Previous research has identified how new classifications can be impeded by cultural and cognitive barriers to their adoption and struggles between professionals or administrators over their implementation. Drawing on 186 interviews, archival sources, and 13 months of observations across different French bureaucracies, I expand on this literature in two ways. First, I use the case of psychic handicap to argue that a new classification can also fail to achieve its intended effect when it constitutes a bureaucratically split personality—a combination of classifications that imply that individuals belong to two, mutually exclusive kinds of people. I show how psychic handicap embodied contradictory expectations about the behavior, characteristics, and institutional trajectory of people with mental disorders. Second, I identify how bureaucrats resolved these contradictions through mechanisms of refractory looping, outsourcing expertise, and classification by default, which in this case led to the reclassification of this population as simply “mentally ill.” This framework calls attention to how practical inconsistencies can limit the impact of new classifications, even absent overt resistance to their elaboration or implementation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
I use “severe mental disorders” to refer to the disturbances of thoughts, emotions, and behaviors usually associated with serious forms of conditions like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression; these disturbances are then typically classified as “symptoms” and labeled “mental illnesses.”
“Handicap” in French can be translated as either “disability” or “handicap.” For clarity, I use “psychic handicap” (“handicap psychique”) to refer to the specific category advanced by advocates for people with mental disorders and “disabled” to refer to the broader administrative classification that could contain people with “physical,” “intellectual,” “sensorial,” or “psychic” handicaps. All translations are by the author.
République Française. 2005. Loi n°2005-102 pour l’égalité des droits et des chances, la participation et la citoyenneté des personnes handicapées. Retrieved October 4, 2017 (https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/).
This shift is visible in the national ministerial strategy, which talks more about “avoiding” psychic handicap than giving benefits based on it. See, Secrétariat d’État chargé des personnes handicapées, 2016, Stratégie quinquennale de l’évolution de l’offre médico-social: Volet handicap psychique (Paris, France).
See, Comptroller General of the United States, 1977, Returning the Mentally Disabled to the Community (Washington, DC).
Forced treatment for mental illness is a notable exception.
Navon and Eyal (2016, p. 1426) describe how looping with respect to autism “disabled” other interpretations of children’s condition. This terminology would be confusing in this article, and those authors’ use of the term does not consider competing classifications per se.
I also obtained unpublished statistics from the Disability Office, which show that the cases I directly observed were representative of the broader range of demands treated by the Disability Office and of their outcomes.
Direct observation of decision-making over access to downstream services for housing and employment was not practical, because many structures (such as a fifty-bed nursing home) would only admit one or two new people per year.
The remainder, mostly in advocacy organizations, had educational backgrounds not directly related to health, disability, or public policy.
See, Ministère de la santé publique, Circulaire du 15 mars 1960 relative au programme d’organisation et d’équipement des départements en matière de lutte contre les maladies mentales (Paris, France).
Both “disability” and “health” are covered by the (frequently renamed) Ministry for Health and Social Affairs, but in separate directions. For simplicity, I speak of the “health” and “disability” ministries.
See, Ministère de la solidarité nationale, 1983, Bilan de la politique en direction des personnes handicapées (Paris, France).
See, Direction de l’hospitalisation et de l’organisation des soins, 2008, “Éléments d’analyse des inadéquations de prise en charge en hospitalisation complète,” DGOS 2014 / 011 / 3.
See, UNAFAM. 2001, Le livre blanc des partenaires de Santé Mentale (Paris, France), p. 12.
See, Chirac, Jacques, 2002, “Discours devant le Conseil national consultatif des personnes handicapées” (Paris, France), retrieved August 19, 2016 (http://discours.vie-publique.fr/).
See, République Française, Loi n°2005-102, article 3.
See, Fédération d’aide à la santé mentale, 2016, “Égalité, citoyenneté et handicap psychique,” Pratiques en santé mentale 1(February), p. 84.
Présidence de la République, 2014, Conférence nationale de handicap: relève des conclusions (Paris, France), Service de presse, retrieved June 26, 2016 (http://www.elysee.fr/).
Massé, Gérard, 1992, La psychiatrie ouverte: une dynamique nouvelle en santé mentale: rapport (Paris, France), Ministère de la santé et de l’action humanitaire, p. 234.
République Française, Loi n°2005-102.
L’agence nationale de l’évaluation et de la qualité des établissements et services médico-sociaux, 2016, Spécificités de l’accompagnement des adultes handicapés psychiques (Paris, France), p. 27.
Caisse nationale de solidarité pour l’autonomie, 2017, Troubles psychiques: Guide d’appui pour l’élaboration de réponses aux besoins des personnes vivant avec des troubles psychiques (Paris, France), p. 16.
Caisse nationale de solidarité pour l’autonomie, 2009, Handicaps d’origine psychique: Une évaluation partagée pour mieux accompagner les parcours des personnes (Paris, France), p. 64.
Hardy-Baylé, Marie-Christine, 2015, Données de preuves en vue d’améliorer le parcours de soins et de vie des personnes présentant un handicap psychique, Centre de Preuves en Psychiatrie.
Haut Conseil de la santé publique, 2014. Enquête quantitative sur les modes d’évaluation et de traitement des demandes de compensation du handicap par les MDPH (Paris, France).
Caisse nationale de solidarité pour l’autonomie, 2017, Une réforme tarifaire pour faciliter les parcours des personnes handicapées (Paris, France), p. 2.
15.8% of these allowances were given to people with psychic handicaps, even though they constituted closer to 25% of total applicants for disability benefits. Amara, Fadéla, Danièle Jourdain-Menninger, Myriam Mesclon-Ravaud, and Gilles Lecoq, 2011, La prise en charge du handicap psychique (Paris, France), Inspection générale des affaires sociales, pp. 30, 70.
Calculation based on Social Security Administration, 2015, Annual Statistical Report on the Disability Insurance Program (Washington, DC).
Unpublished statistics (see Note 9).
A key example was “Potentiel Emploi,” a national experimentation in a detailed evaluation of working capacity centered on people with psychic handicaps. The experiment was not renewed.
Le Houérou, Annie, 2014, Dynamiser l’emploi des personnes handicapées en milieu ordinaire (Paris, France), Assemblée Nationale, p. 24.
UNAFAM, Le livre blanc, p. 12.
Agence régionale de santé, 2011, Projet Régional de Santé: Schéma d’organisation médico-social, Île-de-France, p. 45.
OECD Health Statistics, 2012, retrieved September 13, 2017 (http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm).
Direction de la recherche, des études, de l’évaluation et des statistiques, 2013, Les établissements et services pour adultes handicapés: Résultats de l’enquête ES 2010 (Paris, France), pp. 269, 273.
MDPH 75, 2014, Rapport d’activité (Paris, France), p. 61.
References
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Alexis, S. (2008). Accueillir ou reconduire. Enquête sur les guichets de l’immigration. 7Paris: Éditions Raisons d’Agir.
Ayme, J. (2002). La loi de 1975 et les réactions syndicales. In J. P. Arveiller (Ed.), Pour une psychiatrie sociale. 50 ans d’action de la Croix Marine (pp. 181–186). Erès: Ramonville-Sainte-Agne, Paris.
Bagnall, A., & Eyal, G. (2016). Forever children? and autonomous citizens: Comparing the deinstitutionalizations of psychiatric patients and developmentally disabled individuals in the United States. In B. Perry (Ed.), 50 years after deinstitutionalization: Mental illness in contemporary communities (pp. 27–61). Bingley: Emerald.
Bailey, S. R. (2008). Unmixing for race making in Brazil. American Journal of Sociology, 114(3), 577–614. https://doi.org/10.1086/592859.
Barman, E. (2013). Classificatory struggles in the nonprofit sector: the formation of the national taxonomy of exempt entities, 1969–1987. Social Science History, 37(1), 103–141. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0145553200010580.
Barral, C. (2007). Disabled persons’ associations in France. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 9(3–4), 214–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/15017410701680506.
Baudot, P.-Y., & Revillard, A. (2015). L’autonomie de l’équilibriste. Gouvernement et action publique, 4(4), 83–113.
Bauduret, J.-F., & Jaeger, M. (2005). Rénover l’action sociale et médico-sociale: histores d’une refondation (2nd ed.). Paris: Dunod.
Berg, M., & Bowker, G. (1997). The multiple bodies of the medical record: toward a sociology of the artifact. The Sociological Quarterly, 38(3), 513–537. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1997.tb00490.x.
Berkowitz, E. D., & DeWitt, L. (2013). The other welfare: Supplemental security income and U.S. social policy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Bertrand, L., Caradec, V., & Eideliman, J.-S. (2014). Situating disability: the recognition of “disabled workers” in France. ALTER-European Journal of Disability Research, 8(4), 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alter.2014.09.006.
Bosk, E. A. (2013). Between badness and sickness: reconsidering medicalization for high risk children and youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(8), 1212–1218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.04.007.
Bourdieu, P. (2015). On the state. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bracci, E., & Llewellyn, S. (2012). Accounting and accountability in an Italian social care provider: contrasting people-changing with people-processing approaches. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(5), 806–834.
Brubaker, R., & Cooper, F. (2000). Beyond “identity.”. Theory and Society, 29(1), 1–47.
Burawoy, M. (1998). The extended case method. Sociological Theory, 16(1), 4–33.
Bureau, M.-C., Rist, B., Lima, L., & Trombert, C. (2013). La traduction de la demande d’aide sociale: les cas du handicap et de l’insertion des jeunes. Revue française d’administration publique, 145(1), 175–188.
Carson, J. (2007). The measure of merit: Talents, intelligence, and inequality in the French and American republics, 1750-1940. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chamak, B. (2010). Autisme, handicap et mouvements sociaux. ALTER-European Journal of Disability Research, 4(2), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alter.2010.02.001.
Chapireau, F. (2016). Le handicap psychique. In L’Encyclopédie médico-chirurgicale. http://www.em-consulte.com/article/1068052/handicap-psychique. Accessed 19 June 2016.
Chauvière, M. (1980). Enfance inadaptée: l’héritage de Vichy. Paris: Les Editions Ouvrières.
Conrad, P. (2007). The medicalization of society: On the transformation of human conditions into treatable disorders. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Craciun, M. (2016). The cultural work of office charisma: maintaining professional power in psychotherapy. Theory and Society, 45(4), 361–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-016-9273-z.
Davis, L., Fulginiti, A., Kriegel, L., & Brekke, J. S. (2012). Deinstitutionalization? Where have all the people gone? Current Psychiatry Reports, 14(3), 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-012-0271-1.
Dubois, V. (2003). La vie au guichet: relation administrative et traitement de la misère (2nd ed.). Paris: Economica.
Espeland, W. N., & Stevens, M. L. (1998). Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 313–343. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.313.
Eyal, G. (2013). For a sociology of expertise: the social origins of the autism epidemic. American Journal of Sociology, 118(4), 863–907. https://doi.org/10.1086/668448.
Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect (pp. 87–104). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fourcade, M. (2009). Economists and societies: Discipline and profession in the United States, Britain, and France, 1890s to 1990s. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Friese, C. (2010). Classification conundrums: categorizing chimeras and enacting species preservation. Theory and Society, 39(2), 145–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-009-9103-7.
Goldberg, C. A. (2005). Contesting the status of relief workers during the new Deal. Social Science History, 29(3), 337–371.
Goldstein, J. (1987). Console and classify: The French psychiatric profession in the nineteenth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gong, N. (2017). “That proves you mad, because you know it not”: Impaired insight and the dilemma of governing psychiatric patients as legal subjects. Theory and Society, 46(3), 201–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-017-9288-0.
Hacking, I. (1995). The looping effects of human kinds. In D. Sperber, D. Premack, & A. J. Premack (Eds.), Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 351–383). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hacking, I. (1998). Rewriting the soul: Multiple personality and the sciences of memory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hansen, H., Bourgois, P., & Drucker, E. (2014). Pathologizing poverty: new forms of diagnosis, disability, and structural stigma under welfare reform. Social Science & Medicine, 103, 76–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.06.033.
Hasenfeld, Y., Rafferty, J. A., & Zald, M. N. (1987). The welfare state, citizenship, and bureaucratic encounters. Annual Review of Sociology, 13(1), 387–415.
Henckes, N. (2011). La politique du handicap psychique. DREES/MiRe–Convention de Recherche n° 08-2547. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/769756/filename/Henckes_2011_Rapport_MiRe.pdf. Accessed 1 Oct 2015.
Hirschman, D., Berrey, E., & Rose-Greenland, F. (2016). Dequantifying diversity: affirmative action and admissions at the University of Michigan. Theory and Society, 45(3), 265–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-016-9270-2.
Horwitz, A. V. (2001). Creating mental illness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Joyce, P., & Mukerji, C. (2017). The state of things: state history and theory reconfigured. Theory and Society, 46(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-017-9282-6.
Kellogg, K. C. (2011). Challenging operations: Medical reform and resistance in surgery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kellogg, K. C. (2014). Brokerage professions and implementing reform in an age of experts. American Sociological Review, 79(5), 912–941. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414544734.
Lakoff, A. (2005). Diagnostic liquidity: mental illness and the global trade in DNA. Theory and Society, 34(1), 63–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-005-6233-4.
Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167–195.
Lanteri-Laura, G. (1972). La chronicité dans la psychiatrie moderne française. Note d’histoire théorique et sociale. Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 27(3), 548–568. https://doi.org/10.3406/ahess.1972.422522.
Lara-Millán, A. (2014). Public emergency room overcrowding in the era of mass imprisonment. American Sociological Review, 79(5), 866–887. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414549552.
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in public service (30th anniversary.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Liu, K., King, M., & Bearman, P. S. (2010). Social influence and the autism epidemic. American Journal of Sociology, 115(5), 1387–1434. https://doi.org/10.1086/651462.
Loveman, M. (2007). The U.S. Census and the contested rules of racial classification in early twentieth-century Puerto Rico. Caribbean Studies, 35(2), 79–113.
Loveman, M. (2014). National colors: Racial classification and the state in Latin America. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Loyal, S., & Quilley, S. (2017). The particularity of the universal: critical reflections on Bourdieu’s theory of symbolic power and the state. Theory and Society, 46(5), 429–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-017-9298-y.
Mayrl, D., & Quinn, S. (2016). Defining the state from within: boundaries, schemas, and associational policymaking. Sociological Theory, 34(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275116632557.
Mohr, J. W., & Duquenne, V. (1997). The duality of culture and practice: poverty relief in New York City, 1888-1917. Theory and Society, 26(2–3), 305–356. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006896022092.
Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham: Duke University Press.
Mora, G. C. (2014). Cross-field effects and ethnic classification. American Sociological Review, 79(2), 183–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122413509813.
Morgan, K. J., & Orloff, A. S. (Eds.). (2017). Introduction. In The many hands of the state: Theorizing political authority and social control (pp. 1–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Navon, D., & Eyal, G. (2016). Looping genomes: diagnostic change and the genetic makeup of the autism population. American Journal of Sociology, 121(5), 1416–1471. https://doi.org/10.1086/684201.
Norton, M. (2014). Classification and coercion: the destruction of piracy in the English maritime system. American Journal of Sociology, 119(6), 1537–1575. https://doi.org/10.1086/676041.
Pinell, P. (2004). La normalisation de la psychiatrie française. Regards sociologiques, 29, 3–21.
Porter, T. M. (1996). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Powell, J. J. W. (2010). Change in disability classification: redrawing categorical boundaries in special education in the United States and Germany, 1920–2005. Comparative Sociology, 9(2), 241–267.
Power, A., Lord, J. E., & DeFranco, A. S. (2014). Active citizenship and disability: Implementing the personalisation of support. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Prottas, J. (1979). People processing: The street-level bureaucrat in public-service bureaucracies. Lexington: Lexington Books.
Romien, P. (2005). À l’origine de la réinsertion professionnelle des personnes handicapées : la prise en charge des invalides de guerre. Revue française des affaires sociales, 2, 229–247.
Rose, N. (2006). Disorders without borders? The expanding scope of psychiatric practice. BioSocieties, 1(04), 465–484. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1745855206004078.
Sandfort, J. R. (2000). Moving beyond discretion and outcomes: examining public management from the front lines of the welfare system. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), 729–756. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024289.
Seim, J. (2017). The ambulance: toward a labor theory of poverty governance. American Sociological Review, 82(3), 451–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417702367.
Showalter, D. (2019). Misdiagnosing medicalization: penal psychopathy and psychiatric practice. Theory and Society, 48(1), 67–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-018-09336-y.
Soss, J. (2000). Unwanted claims: the politics of participation in the U.S. welfare system. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ccology, translations and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001.
Starr, P. (1992). Social categories and claims in the liberal state. Social Research, 59(2), 263–295.
Steensland, B. (2006). Cultural categories and the American welfare state: the case of guaranteed income policy. American Journal of Sociology, 111(5), 1273–1326. https://doi.org/10.1086/ajs.2006.111.issue-5.
Stone, D. A. (1984). The disabled state. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
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(3), 273–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-011-9142-8.
Waldschmidt, A. (2009). Disability policy of the European Union: the supranational level. ALTER-European Journal of Disability Research, 3(1), 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alter.2008.12.002.
Watkins-Hayes, C. (2009). The new welfare bureaucrats: Entanglements of race, class, and policy reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Whooley, O. (2016). Measuring mental disorders: the failed commensuration project of DSM-5. Social Science & Medicine, 166, 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.08.006.
Winance, M., Ville, I., & Ravaud, J.-F. (2007). Disability policies in France: changes and tensions between the category-based, universalist and personalized approaches. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 9(3–4), 160–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/15017410701680795.
Zerubavel, E. (1996). Lumping and splitting: notes on social classification. Sociological Forum, 11(3), 421–433.
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Martin Eiermann, Gil Eyal, Neil Fligstein, Marion Fourcade, Matty Lichtenstein, Michael Long, Mara Loveman, Marie Mourad, Isabel Perera, Gisele Sapiro, Tonya Tartour, two anonymous reviewers, and the Theory and Society Editors, as well as the Culture Organizations and Politics Workshop, Berkeley Medical Sociology Working Group, the Berkeley-SciencesPo Collaboration Conference, the Columbia Science Knowledge and Technology Working Group, and the Center for European Sociology. A version of this article was presented at the 2017 ASA Annual Meeting in the Regular Session on Health Policy. Research was made possible with the generous support of the Chateaubriand and Georges Lurcy Fellowships and the Institute for International Studies and Center for European Studies at Berkeley.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Barnard, A.V. Bureaucratically split personalities: (re)ordering the mentally disordered in the French state. Theor Soc 48, 753–784 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-019-09364-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-019-09364-2