Abstract
The proposed revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), has reignited a protracted debate in psychiatry and clinical psychology regarding the criteria used to diagnose and classify mental disorders. Drawing on the concepts of legitimisation and hegemony, the aim of this study is to deconstruct how the authoritativeness of the DSM was discursively constructed, legitimised and consolidated over time. To fulfil this purpose, we combine a critical psychology perspective with critical discourse analysis and adopt a multi-level model of analysis that embraces the notions of genre and repertoire in scientific discourse. The materials were approached considering the following interrelated dimensions: (a) semantic macro-areas; (b) discursive strategies; and (c) linguistic means. The data set is constituted by the Forewords and Introductions of different editions of the DSM, from the DSM-I through to the DSM-5. The analysis highlights the discursive strategies that play an important role in self-legitimisation and the construction of a dominant hegemonic discourse.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
