Read on Twitter
(1/5) Thoughts on criticism of the term ‘mental disorder/illness’:
Issue: it is used to mean some variation of an internal (bodily) dysfunction—with the all consequences/commitments that come with it. This idea is not only conceptually unjustified but scientifically unevidenced.
Issue: it is used to mean some variation of an internal (bodily) dysfunction—with the all consequences/commitments that come with it. This idea is not only conceptually unjustified but scientifically unevidenced.
(2/5) The term, like any term, can obviously be (and is) defined differently, and some definitions would clearly not invite the same criticism.
However, the fact that these words *can be* defined differently — based on old meanings or new — is essentially beside the point.
However, the fact that these words *can be* defined differently — based on old meanings or new — is essentially beside the point.
(3/5) Mental disorder *is* defined this way by the DSM and ‘mental illness’ is widely conflated with DSM disorders. Versions of this meaning have been actively disseminated into the professional and public consciousness (since at least the 1980s).
(4/5) Both disorder and especially illness are words that automatically invoke the jurisdiction and powers of medicine, with it’s narrow, often highly reductive view of mind/body/world functioning. Irrespective of the definition, the words thus function as a sociopolitical event.
(5/5) Though one can define and use it differently, its definition by psychiatry carries profound real world consequences. There are few, if any, real word consequences of philosophical discussion and no practical respect of illness/disorder defined subjectively.
(6/6) The criticism of the term ‘mental illness/disorder' is *not* a critique of the experiences, nor their validity. The feeling of ‘being ill or ‘ill health’ is essentially independent of the above and can be approached in ways independent of medicine and what it invokes.
