Abstract
Clinical diagnoses are impossible without referring to normative assumptions about what is desirable functioning. In this paper, the authors explicate the implicit normative assumptions that seem to have guided the formulation of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( DSM–IV) personality disorder (PD) criteria. Then the authors discuss various conceptual reference frames in which such assumptions may be grounded: (1) a given diagnostician's personal value system, (2) the expectations of the culture in which a person currently lives, (3) the expectations of the culture in which a person was raised, (4) models of “natural” personality functioning that are rooted in evolution theory, and (5) the presence of distress and/or impairment. In accordance with Wakefield (1992a , 2006 ), the authors argue that PD diagnoses necessarily involve both an evolutionary and a cultural component. If PDs were defined completely in cultural terms, investigating their biological underpinnings would be nonsensical. In addition, the values of any specific culture should not be given too much weight, because cultural expectations may themselves be harmful. Future editions of DSM should define personality pathology in less culture-relative terms, and address the inevitable issue of values more explicitly.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: 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.