La psychiatrie et les disciplines extrinsèques. Ouvertures et compositions

Abstract

ObjectivesPsychiatry as a discipline is oriented towards the other and towards otherness; not only that of the patient and of their psychological issues, but also for the alterity of external knowledge. Recognizing its own limitations and its inability to think alone, psychiatry, whose specific knowledge is undoubtedly quite limited, has since the beginning turned to other disciplines. This article does not try to propose a new model likely to articulate this conceptual heterogeneity, but tries to understand how this movement of opening towards other disciplines is carried out. Psychiatry undeniably finds a richness in this, but does not its subservience to currents that are external to it risk accentuating its dissolution and making its identity disappear? MethodBased on the distinction proposed by G. Lantéri-Laura between intrinsic disciplines (i.e. clinical disciplines such as neurology, psychoanalysis) and extrinsic disciplines, which use a theoretical elaboration that owes nothing to clinical engagement with subjects (such as anthropology, history, or linguistics), this article will endeavor to show the contribution of extrinsic disciplines throughout the history of psychiatry, using a number of specific cases. ResultsThis article describes several ways in which psychiatry is linked to extrinsic knowledge, focusing more specifically on the human and social sciences and on history. Firstly, we study the movement by which psychiatry seeks support for its practice, an ethic of care, and even a critical ‘third eye’ that can offer it this perspective on a practice that is often decried. Secondly, this study proposes to examine the extent to which psychiatry, through the knowledge that it isolates concerning the question of madness, opens up by itself to a questioning of humanity that can be taken into account by other disciplines. Sociology shows, in particular, how clinical categories can be linked to the prejudices and ideals of a culture and an era. History shows how an event such as Pinel's liberation from chains can benefit from historical interpretations, the meanings of which are never exhausted. DiscussionPsychiatry is inspired by other knowledges, but this borrowing is often based on displacements that reflect the need to adapt to clinical issues. This extrinsic knowledge is never imported without transformation and without some infidelity. ConclusionRe-examining what is most obvious, questioning what seems most customary, these are the benefits that psychiatry can obtain by choosing to decentralize and to call upon disciplines extrinsic to the clinical. The inclusion of the human and social sciences in the understanding of psychological disorders is now well established. The dialogue that results from the meeting of heterogeneous disciplines is not intended to lead to a consensus. The clinical practice of psychiatry retains strong specificities linked to the exercise of the encounter with mental disorder. The resulting knowledge is irreducible to other disciplines. The psychiatric act is based on a responsibility incumbent on the clinician alone, irremediably divided by the issues he or she must face.