A new article in Synthese argues that psychiatry’s reliance on standardized diagnostic tools, such as the DSM and questionnaires like the PHQ-9, may contribute to structural forms of epistemic injustice.
Philosopher Virginia Ballesteros contends that psychiatry’s pursuit of objectivity often comes at the expense of patient perspectives, flattening complex personal experiences into predetermined symptom categories.
“For the sake of objectivity, patients have to be treated at best as mere informants, or at worst as sources of information—either way, they are not treated as epistemic agents,” Ballesteros writes.
“The conception of objectivity as standardization is, I argue, a contributing structural factor to several forms of epistemic injustice.”
Since there are no biological markers or lab tests for most psychiatric conditions, psychiatry has turned to standardization—checklists, psychiatric interviews, and Likert scales—to bring order to what would otherwise be subjective and variable presentations. However, Ballesteros argues that these tools simplify complexity and impose a framework that often excludes what patients themselves consider most significant. They transform narratives into data points and patients into information providers, undermining the possibility of authentic epistemic engagement.
You've landed on a MIA journalism article that is funded by MIA supporters. To read the full article, sign up as a MIA Supporter. All active donors get full access to all MIA content, and free passes to all Mad in America events.
Current MIA supporters can log in below.(If you can't afford to support MIA in this way, email us at [email protected] and we will provide you with access to all donor-supported content.)
There’s nothing neutral about psychiatric labels. They harm lots of people in ways that are unforgivable. Professionals who believe in them are lazy, selfish and cruel.
Report comment
Psychiatry and psychology wear the mask of neutrality when in fact they hold the blueprint for authoritarian rule.
Report comment
Sorry, but how can anyone call these “assessments” anything remotely close to “objective?” Except perhaps in the sense that they objectify the client?
Report comment