Steeves Demazeux – författare

The World Health Organization states that depression is the leading cause of disability worldwide, and predicts that by 2030 the epidemic of depression raging across the world will be the single biggest contributor to the overall burden of disease of all health conditions. Yet this gloomy picture masks a number of paradoxes concerning the diagnosis and cultural interpretation of depression that appear to challenge the claimed prevalence rates on which it is based. This book’s essays by some of the world’s leading researchers and scholars on depression explores these anomalies in detail from multidisciplinary and multicultural perspectives, and in doing so reshapes the debate on the nature of depression that is currently under way in the US and abroad. At the book’s core is the exploration from the multiple perspectives of a key dilemma: is the epidemic of depression real or is it just apparent? In particular, could it be the result of criteria laid down in the official American classification system of mental disorders, the DSM, interacting with cultural changes to reshape our view of melancholy, pathologizing what were formerly normal symptoms of grief or intense sadness? The debate over the DSM's conception of depression has an international relevance, with the WHO’s upcoming revisions to its International Classification of Diseases requiring coordination with the DSM. This collection of perspectives has an unprecedented international dimension, as scholars from Europe and around the world join US academics to explore a central and controversial element of contemporary psychiatric diagnosis - and one that has enormous practical implications for the future of mental health care and how we view our emotions. The book’s accessible essays will make it useful to scholars, practitioners, and students across a wide range of disciplines.

The World Health Organization states that depression is the leading cause of disability worldwide, and predicts that by 2030 the epidemic of depression raging across the world will be the single biggest contributor to the overall burden of disease of all health conditions. Yet this gloomy picture masks a number of paradoxes concerning the diagnosis and cultural interpretation of depression that appear to challenge the claimed prevalence rates on which it is based. This book’s essays by some of the world’s leading researchers and scholars on depression explores these anomalies in detail from multidisciplinary and multicultural perspectives, and in doing so reshapes the debate on the nature of depression that is currently under way in the US and abroad. At the book’s core is the exploration from the multiple perspectives of a key dilemma: is the epidemic of depression real or is it just apparent? In particular, could it be the result of criteria laid down in the official American classification system of mental disorders, the DSM, interacting with cultural changes to reshape our view of melancholy, pathologizing what were formerly normal symptoms of grief or intense sadness? The debate over the DSM''s conception of depression has an international relevance, with the WHO’s upcoming revisions to its International Classification of Diseases requiring coordination with the DSM. This collection of perspectives has an unprecedented international dimension, as scholars from Europe and around the world join US academics to explore a central and controversial element of contemporary psychiatric diagnosis - and one that has enormous practical implications for the future of mental health care and how we view our emotions. The book’s accessible essays will make it useful to scholars, practitioners, and students across a wide range of disciplines.

Since its third edition in 1980, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association has acquired a hegemonic role in the health care professions and has had a broad impact on the lay public. The publication in May 2013 of its fifth edition, the DSM-5, marked the latest milestone in the history of the DSM and of American psychiatry. In The DSM-5 in Perspective: Philosophical Reflections on the Psychiatric Babel, experts in the philosophy of psychiatry propose original essays that explore the main issues related to the DSM-5, such as the still weak validity and reliability of the classification, the scientific status of its revision process, the several cultural, gender and sexist biases that are apparent in the criteria, the comorbidity issue and the categorical vs. dimensional debate. For several decades the DSM has been nicknamed “The Psychiatric Bible.” This volume would like to suggest another biblical metaphor: the Tower of Babel. Altogether, the essays in this volume describe the DSM as an imperfect and unachievable monument – a monument that was originally built to celebrate the new unity of clinical psychiatric discourse, but that ended up creating, as a result of its hubris, ever more profound practical divisions and theoretical difficulties.

Since its third edition in 1980, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association has acquired a hegemonic role in the health care professions and has had a broad impact on the lay public. The publication in May 2013 of its fifth edition, the DSM-5, marked the latest milestone in the history of the DSM and of American psychiatry. In The DSM-5 in Perspective: Philosophical Reflections on the Psychiatric Babel, experts in the philosophy of psychiatry propose original essays that explore the main issues related to the DSM-5, such as the still weak validity and reliability of the classification, the scientific status of its revision process, the several cultural, gender and sexist biases that are apparent in the criteria, the comorbidity issue and the categorical vs. dimensional debate. For several decades the DSM has been nicknamed “The Psychiatric Bible.” This volume would like to suggest another biblical metaphor: the Tower of Babel. Altogether, the essays in this volume describe the DSM as an imperfect and unachievable monument – a monument that was originally built to celebrate the new unity of clinical psychiatric discourse, but that ended up creating, as a result of its hubris, ever more profound practical divisions and theoretical difficulties.