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 (7)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Greene, T.
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?

The Kraepelinian dichotomy: the twin pillars crumbling?

Talya Greene

Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, talya10{at}hotmail.com

Emil Kraepelin's view that psychotic disorders are naturally-occurring disease entities, and that dementia praecox and manic-depressive psychosis represent two different diseases, has been hugely influential on classificatory systems for psychosis. Corresponding to the Kraepelinian dichotomy, those systems generally differentiated schizophrenia from affective psychosis. This paper examines the debate that took place between 1980 and 2000 regarding this differentiation. During the 1980s, the scientific reliability of the diagnostic criteria was challenged. In the 1990s there were significant critiques of the validity of the Kraepelinian dichotomy. Yet the dichotomy has not been formally abandoned, and the discussion continues to the present day. This paper suggests that before psychiatry can abandon the Kraepelinian dichotomy, a new model for conceptualizing and describing psychotic symptoms may be required.

Key Words: affective disorder • classification • Emil Kraepelin • Kraepelinian psychiatry • psychosis • schizophrenia • 20th century

History of Psychiatry, Vol. 18, No. 3, 361-379 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0957154X07078977
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
 Arch Gen PsychiatryHome page
J. X. Van Snellenberg and T. de Candia
Meta-analytic Evidence for Familial Coaggregation of Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder
Arch Gen Psychiatry, July 1, 2009; 66(7): 748 - 755.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Schizophr BullHome page
S. Heckers
Making Progress in Schizophrenia Research
Schizophr Bull, July 1, 2008; 34(4): 591 - 594.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Schizophr BullHome page
P.-I Lin and B. D. Mitchell
Approaches for Unraveling the Joint Genetic Determinants of Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder
Schizophr Bull, July 1, 2008; 34(4): 791 - 797.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]