Content deleted Content added
GoldRomean (talk | contribs) Declining submission: essay - Submission reads like an essay (AFCH) |
|||
| (25 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{AFC submission|d|essay|u=Inspired Insomniac|ns=118|decliner=GoldRomean|declinets=20250516182445|ts=20250424205805}} <!-- Do not remove this line! -->
{{Short description|An article on "Harmful Dysfunction Analysis" (the intended title of the article page)}}
{{Draft topics|medicine-and-health}}
{{AfC topic|stem}}
'''Harmful dysfunction analysis''' ('''HDA''') is a theoretical framework developed by American philosopher and clinical social worker [[Jerome Wakefield|Jerome C. Wakefield]] to define mental disorder. Bringing together evolutionary theory, philosophy, and clinical practice, Wakefield proposes that mental disorder is best thought of as a “harmful dysfunction”. Specifically, HDA suggests that a condition is a mental disorder only if it results from the failure of an internal mechanism to perform its natural evolutionary purpose (dysfunction) and results in effects considered harmful within a particular society (harm).▼
▲Harmful dysfunction analysis (HDA) is a theoretical framework developed by American philosopher and clinical social worker [[Jerome Wakefield|Jerome C. Wakefield]] to define mental disorder. Bringing together evolutionary theory, philosophy, and clinical practice, Wakefield proposes that mental disorder is best thought of as a “harmful dysfunction”. Specifically, HDA suggests that a condition is a mental disorder only if it results from the failure of an internal mechanism to perform its natural evolutionary purpose (dysfunction) and results in effects considered harmful within a particular society (harm).
== Background and
Wakefield developed HDA in response to what he saw as persistent confusion in how psychiatry defines mental disorder. He was critical of the [[Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders|DSM-III-R]], which described mental disorder as “statistically unexpectable distress or disability.” Although intended to improve diagnostic consistency across clinicians, Wakefield argued that the definition failed to meaningfully distinguish disorders from non-disorders and lacked a solid grounding in biological theory.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Wakefield |first=Jerome C. |date=1992 |title=Disorder as harmful dysfunction: A conceptual critique of DSM-III-R's definition of mental disorder. |url=https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.99.2.232 |journal=Psychological Review |language=en |volume=99 |issue=2 |pages=232–247 |doi=10.1037/0033-295X.99.2.232 |pmid=1594724 |issn=1939-1471}}</ref>{{Rp|pages=232-233}}
Historically, diagnostic approaches in psychiatry have often followed two broad traditions. The earlier approach was to base diagnosis on [[Deviance (sociology)|social deviance]]. Traits and behaviours deemed unacceptable, such as [[Sluggish schizophrenia|dissenting political views]] or [[Homosexuality in the DSM#:~:text=Homosexuality was classified as a,termed ego-dystonic sexual orientation.|minority sexual orientations]], would be
HDA sought to correct these issues by requiring both dysfunction and harm.
== Theoretical
=== Defining
In the context of HDA, harm refers to negative consequences experienced as a direct result of dysfunction. Importantly, whether something is
Wakefield originally proposed that
=== Defining
“A failure of some internal mechanism to perform a function for which it was biologically designed.”<ref
Dysfunction
=== Disorder as a
[[File:Venn Daigram.png|thumb|380x380px|Venn Diagram Illustrating HDA]]
HDA holds that both harm and dysfunction must be present for a condition to be a mental disorder. Dysfunction provides the objective basis for diagnosis; harm adds cultural sensitivity.
An example Wakefield uses to
== Criticisms ==
=== On
Critics of the dysfunction requirement argue that
Philosopher Maël Lemoine
=== On
The harm component has also attracted criticism, particularly regarding its reliance on social values. Rachel Cooper has argued that while the harm concept is necessary to prevent the
Furthermore, Andreas De Block and Jonathan Sholl question whether harm should be determined through social values or individual experience.<ref name=":3" />{{Rp|pages=496-498}} They argue that both approaches present problems. If harm depends on local social norms, the concept becomes vulnerable to culturally biased conclusions. For example, it could justify labelling homosexuality a disorder in heteronormative societies if it is also assumed to involve dysfunction. Alternatively,
=== Alternative
Notably, Christopher Boorse continues to defend his biostatistical theory of mental disorder.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|pages=4-5}} Boorse argues his model avoids the ambiguities associated with cultural judgements.<ref name=":4">{{
== References ==
{{reflist}}
== External links ==
<!-- categories go here -->
| |||