The DSM-5: A Psychopathological Analysis

Psychopathology is the scientific study of mental disorders: a topic that most, if not all of the population has had to deal with on a personal level, whether they themselves are personally affected by it or a friend/family member is. Despite this connection, all forms of psychopathology—from mild depression to severe schizophrenia—have had a complex, if not contradictory relationship in establishing itself as a science. The recent publication of the fifth edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) has attempted to do just that, creating a system that allegedly classifies and diagnoses mental disorders in an accurate, scientific way. However, due to the fluidity of mental illness diagnosis, the DSM-5 does not and
The introduction of the DSM-III established a much more grounded basis for diagnosis, but Nemeroff and Weinberger fear that the DSM-5’s “classification [of mental disorders] using biological phenomena…which are highly dependent on context and research protocol may reintroduce some of this earlier vagueness, subjectivity, and imprecision.” Both also fear that the inclusion of biological classification will lead to an overall misdiagnosis. Allen Frances has a similar worry, believing the DMS-5 relies more so on diagnosis fads than a patient’s true psychiatric state that are “likely to be over-diagnosed, lead to unnecessary stigma, overtreatment, a misallocation of resources and impact on the way people see themselves.” Another problem with the DSM-5 its lack of This gray area does not cause difficulty with diagnosis, but it causes difficulty in the classification of what can be diagnosed. Furthermore, an affected individual may not fully understand their symptoms, thus limiting the chances for a proper diagnosis. Yet again, this challenges the idea of who is an expert as the traditional expert may have to rely solely on
Psychiatry relies more on the “soft” aspects of science: ones that cannot be so easily measured. In doing so, there is much room for interpretation. As Alex Berezow explained, “Psychologists can't use a ruler or a microscope, so they invent an arbitrary scale. Today, personally, I'm feeling about a 3.7 out of 5. How about you?” While Berezow’s use of “arbitrary” can be offensive to those within the psychological and psychopathological fields, the case still stands: there is no absolute measure for psychology. This limitation paves the way for difference in opinion. As Berezow explain, he may feel like a 3.7, but a psychological screening may put him at a 2 or 4, depending on how he answers questions. This conflict between patient and psychologist once more raises the question of if the patient is the true expert of their own mind. However, if the patient cannot fully understand their symptoms and therefore does not report them, it