The biopolitics of defi ning “mental disorder”

7Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

What is psychiatry, and how does it relate to other medical and mental health disciplines? Apart from the obvious sociological answer—psychiatrists are physicians who have completed residency training in psychiatry—psychiatry has always struggled to define itself with precision. Unlike pediatrics or geriatrics, psychiatry does not define itself by reference to a specific demographic population. Unlike general surgery or anesthesiology or radiology, it does not define itself exclusively with reference to specific technologies or interventional practices: the majority of psychotropic medications in the United States are prescribed by nonpsychiatrists [1]. Unlike certain medical specialties such as nephrology or cardiology, psychiatry cannot lay exclusive claim to a particular body part or organ system: although psychiatry is often referred to as a “clinical neuroscience” [2], psychiatry at best shares this distinction with neurology, neurosurgery, and neuropsychology. Nor can psychiatry define itself according to a particular institutional structure of practice, since psychiatrists have long shed their historic identification with inpatient institutions and now work within a broad and diverse array of practice settings.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kinghorn, W. (2013). The biopolitics of defi ning “mental disorder.” In Making the DSM-5: Concepts and Controversies (pp. 47–61). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6504-1_4

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free