排除精神病理学和解释学的无知威胁客观性

IF 2.6 0 PHILOSOPHY
Bennett Knox
{"title":"排除精神病理学和解释学的无知威胁客观性","authors":"Bennett Knox","doi":"10.1353/ppp.2022.0044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This article brings together considerations from philosophical work on standpoint epistemology, feminist philosophy of science, and epistemic injustice to examine a particular problem facing contemporary psychiatry: the conflict between the conceptual resources of psychiatric medicine and alternative conceptualizations like those of the neurodiversity movement and psychiatric abolitionism. I argue that resistance to fully considering such alternative conceptualizations in processes such as the revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders emerges in part from a particular form of epistemic injustice (hermeneutical ignorance) leveled against a particular social group (which I call the \"psychopathologized\"). Further, insofar as the objectivity which psychiatry should aspire to is a kind of \"social objectivity\" which requires incorporation of various normative perspectives, this particular form of epistemic injustice threatens to undermine its scientific objectivity. Although many questions regarding implementation remain, this implies that psychiatry must grapple substantively with radical reconceptualizations of its domain if it is to achieve legitimate scientific objectivity.","PeriodicalId":45397,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy Psychiatry & Psychology","volume":"5 1","pages":"253 - 266"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exclusion of the Psychopathologized and Hermeneutical Ignorance Threaten Objectivity\",\"authors\":\"Bennett Knox\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/ppp.2022.0044\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:This article brings together considerations from philosophical work on standpoint epistemology, feminist philosophy of science, and epistemic injustice to examine a particular problem facing contemporary psychiatry: the conflict between the conceptual resources of psychiatric medicine and alternative conceptualizations like those of the neurodiversity movement and psychiatric abolitionism. I argue that resistance to fully considering such alternative conceptualizations in processes such as the revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders emerges in part from a particular form of epistemic injustice (hermeneutical ignorance) leveled against a particular social group (which I call the \\\"psychopathologized\\\"). Further, insofar as the objectivity which psychiatry should aspire to is a kind of \\\"social objectivity\\\" which requires incorporation of various normative perspectives, this particular form of epistemic injustice threatens to undermine its scientific objectivity. Although many questions regarding implementation remain, this implies that psychiatry must grapple substantively with radical reconceptualizations of its domain if it is to achieve legitimate scientific objectivity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45397,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy Psychiatry & Psychology\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"253 - 266\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy Psychiatry & Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/ppp.2022.0044\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy Psychiatry & Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ppp.2022.0044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

摘要:本文汇集了立场认识论、女性主义科学哲学和认识论不公正的哲学思想,探讨了当代精神病学面临的一个特殊问题:精神医学的概念资源与神经多样性运动和精神病学废除主义等另类概念之间的冲突。我认为,在《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》(Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)的修订等过程中,对充分考虑这些替代概念的抵制部分来自于针对特定社会群体(我称之为“精神病理化”)的一种特定形式的认知不公正(解释学上的无知)。此外,就精神病学应该追求的客观性而言,它是一种“社会客观性”,需要结合各种规范的观点,这种特殊形式的认识不公正可能会破坏它的科学客观性。尽管许多关于实施的问题仍然存在,但这意味着,如果精神病学要实现合理的科学客观性,就必须从本质上努力对其领域进行彻底的重新概念化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exclusion of the Psychopathologized and Hermeneutical Ignorance Threaten Objectivity
Abstract:This article brings together considerations from philosophical work on standpoint epistemology, feminist philosophy of science, and epistemic injustice to examine a particular problem facing contemporary psychiatry: the conflict between the conceptual resources of psychiatric medicine and alternative conceptualizations like those of the neurodiversity movement and psychiatric abolitionism. I argue that resistance to fully considering such alternative conceptualizations in processes such as the revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders emerges in part from a particular form of epistemic injustice (hermeneutical ignorance) leveled against a particular social group (which I call the "psychopathologized"). Further, insofar as the objectivity which psychiatry should aspire to is a kind of "social objectivity" which requires incorporation of various normative perspectives, this particular form of epistemic injustice threatens to undermine its scientific objectivity. Although many questions regarding implementation remain, this implies that psychiatry must grapple substantively with radical reconceptualizations of its domain if it is to achieve legitimate scientific objectivity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.30%
发文量
40
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信