Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
History of Psychiatry
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (8)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cooper, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

What is Wrong with the DSM?

Rachel Cooper

Lancaster University R.V.Cooper{at}lancaster.ac.uk

The DSM is the main classification of mental disorders used by psychiatrists in the United States and, increasingly, around the world. Although widely used, the DSM has come in for fierce criticism, with many commentators believing it to be conceptually flawed in a variety of ways. This paper assesses some of these philosophical worries. The first half of the paper asks whether the project of constructing a classification of mental disorders that ‘cuts nature at the joints’ makes sense. What is mental disorder? Are types of mental disorder natural kinds (that is, are the distinctions between them objective and of fundamental theoretical importance, as are, say, the distinctions between the chemical elements)? The second half of the paper addresses epistemic worries. Even if types of mental disorder are natural kinds there may be reason to doubt that the DSM will come to reflect their natural structure. In particular, I examine the extent to which the DSM is theory-laden, and look at how it has been shaped by social and financial factors. Ultimately, I conclude that although the DSM is of immense practical importance it is not likely to become the best possible classification of mental disorders.

Key Words: atheoretical • classification • Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders • diagnosis • disease • DSM • insurance natural kinds

History of Psychiatry, Vol. 15, No. 1, 5-25 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0957154X04039343
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 History of PsychiatryHome page
D. Fraguas and C.S. Breathnach
Problems with retrospective studies of the presence of schizophrenia
History of Psychiatry, March 1, 2009; 20(1): 61 - 71.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Theory Culture SocietyHome page
V. Skultans
The Appropriation of Suffering: Psychiatric Practice in the Post-Soviet Clinic
Theory Culture Society, May 1, 2007; 24(3): 27 - 48.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 History of PsychiatryHome page
C. A. Mallett
Behaviorally-based disorders: the historical social construction of youths' most prevalent psychiatric diagnoses.
History of Psychiatry, December 1, 2006; 17(68 Pt 4): 437 - 460.
[Abstract] [PDF]