Abstract

Although the “Introduction” to the DSM makes it clear that the presence of “clinical” distress or impairment is insufficient for a diagnosis of “mental disorder” , in practice the clinician is completely unshackled from the conceptual definition and is free to decide on a case-by-case basis if “enough” distress or impairment is present, regardless of circumstances, to judge that “mental disorder” can be diagnosed. It is argued that reference to a biological or psychological dysfunction cannot raise “mental disorder” from a judgment quite like “This is pornography, not literature” to a technical–scientific term because “biological dysfunction” must be tied to an outcome that is itself less ambiguous than “mental disorder,” and “psychological dysfunction” erroneously assumes that how people are supposed to think, feel, and act, regardless of circumstances, can be as uncontentious as ideas about physical well being, and in addition erroneously assumes that human behavior can be causally explained