Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 38 (2):107-127 (2013)

Essentialism is one of the most pervasive problems in mental health research. Many psychiatrists still hold the view that their nosologies will enable them, sooner or later, to carve nature at its joints and to identify and chart the essence of mental disorders. Moreover, according to recent research in social psychology, some laypeople tend to think along similar essentialist lines. The main aim of this article is to highlight a number of processes that possibly explain the persistent presence and popularity of essentialist conceptions of mental disorders. One such process is the general tendency of laypeople to essentialize conceptual structures, including biological, social, and psychiatric categories. Another process involves the allure of biological psychiatry. Advocating a categorical and biological approach, this strand of psychiatry probably reinforced the already existing lay essentialism about mental disorders. As such, the question regarding why we essentialize mental disorders is a salient example of how cultural trends zero in on natural tendencies, and vice versa, and how both can boost each other
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/jmp/jht008
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 53,666
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Rethinking Disease in Psychiatry: Disease Models and the Medical Imaginary.Jennifer Radden - 2018 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 24 (5):1087-1092.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
142 ( #64,375 of 2,349,374 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #186,919 of 2,349,374 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes