Skip to main content

Conclusion

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Making the DSM-5

Abstract

DSM-5, along with its predecessors, claims to be no more less than a classification of psychiatric disorders. Each DSM aspires to carry out this classification mission in a scientific manner, organizing the world of psychopathology in the most scientifically acceptable manner at the time of its inscription. The authors of the successive manuals would thus be reluctant to see their creations as historical, cultural, ideological products rather than as scientific documents. The chapters in this section challenge the stated goals of the manuals by embedding the DSMs in their political contexts. In these other settings, the manuals become more and less than simple scientific nosologies: more in the sense that they are expressive of larger cultural themes; less in the sense that their science is inevitably thrown into question.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Kupfer DJ, Regier DA. Neuroscience, clinical evidence, and the future of psychiatric classification in DSM-5. Am J Psychiatry. 2011;168:172–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Robins E, Guze SB. Establishment of diagnostic validity in psychiatric illness: its application to schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry. 1970;126:983–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Compton WM, Guze SB. The neo-Kraepelinian revolution in psychiatric diagnosis. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1995;245:196–201.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Flanagan EH, Davidson L, Strauss JS. Issues for DSM-5: incorporating patients’ subjective experiences. Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164:391–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Flanagan EH, Davidson L, Strauss JS. The need for patient-subjective data in the DSM and the ICD. Psychiatry. 2010;73:297–307.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cuthbert B, Insel T. The data of diagnosis: new approaches to psychiatric classification. Psychiatry. 2010;73:311–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Phillips J, Frances A, et al. The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue. Part 1: conceptual and definitional issues in psychiatric diagnosis. Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2012;7(3):1–29.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Phillips .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Phillips, J. (2013). Conclusion. In: Paris, J., Phillips, J. (eds) Making the DSM-5. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6504-1_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6504-1_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-6503-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-6504-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics