10 Mar 2009, 12:58 am
10 Mar 2009, 1:06 am
junior1 wrote:
This post is an attempt at a small blow against the massive naivete that can often be found on this board.
Aspergers is a social construct. It does not exist!
Here's a few quotes from chapter 2 of the "Handbook of Positive Psychology". I believe this chapter can be found for free in its entirety on google books.
Another choice quote a little later:
By all means, if you need disability accommodation or government money from the people in power get a so called expert to say you have Aspergers. But the idea that you are suffering from an objective, real disease is likely a naive one.
Aspergers is a social construct. It does not exist!
Here's a few quotes from chapter 2 of the "Handbook of Positive Psychology". I believe this chapter can be found for free in its entirety on google books.
Quote:
As with all icons, powerful sociocultural, political,
professional, and economic forces built the
illness ideology and the DSM and continue to
sustain them. Thus, to begin this iconoclasm,
we must realize that our conceptions of psychological
normality and abnormality, along with
our specific diagnostic labels and categories, are
not facts about people but social constructions—
abstract concepts that were developed collaboratively
by the members of society (individuals
and institutions) over time and that represent a
shared view of the world. As Widiger and Trull
(1991) have said, the DSM “is not a scientific
document. . . . It is a social document” (p. 111,
emphasis added). The illness ideology and the
conception of mental disorder that have guided the evolution of the DSM were constructed
through the implicit and explicit collaborations
of theorists, researchers, professionals, their clients,
and the culture in which all are embedded.
For this reason, “mental disorder” and the numerous
diagnostic categories of the DSM were
not “discovered” in the same manner that an
archaeologist discovers a buried artifact or a
medical researcher discovers a virus. Instead,
they were invented. By describing mental disorders
as inventions, however, I do not mean
that they are “myths” (Szasz, 1974) or that the
distress of people who are labeled as mentally
disordered is not real. Instead, I mean that these
disorders do not “exist” and “have properties”
in the same manner that artifacts and viruses
do. For these reasons, a taxonomy of mental
disorders such as the DSM “does not simply
describe and classify characteristics of groups of
individuals, but . . . actively constructs a version
of both normal and abnormal . . . which is then
applied to individuals who end up being classified
as normal or abnormal” (Parker, Georgaca,
Harper, McLaughlin, & Stowell-Smith, 1995,
p. 93).
The illness ideology’s conception of “mental
disorder” and the various specific DSM categories
of mental disorders are not reflections and
mappings of psychological facts about people.
Instead, they are social artifacts that serve the
same sociocultural goals as our constructions of
race, gender, social class, and sexual orientation—
that of maintaining and expanding the
power of certain individuals and institutions and
maintaining social order, as defined by those in
power (Beall, 1993; Parker et al., 1995; Rosenblum
& Travis, 1996).
professional, and economic forces built the
illness ideology and the DSM and continue to
sustain them. Thus, to begin this iconoclasm,
we must realize that our conceptions of psychological
normality and abnormality, along with
our specific diagnostic labels and categories, are
not facts about people but social constructions—
abstract concepts that were developed collaboratively
by the members of society (individuals
and institutions) over time and that represent a
shared view of the world. As Widiger and Trull
(1991) have said, the DSM “is not a scientific
document. . . . It is a social document” (p. 111,
emphasis added). The illness ideology and the
conception of mental disorder that have guided the evolution of the DSM were constructed
through the implicit and explicit collaborations
of theorists, researchers, professionals, their clients,
and the culture in which all are embedded.
For this reason, “mental disorder” and the numerous
diagnostic categories of the DSM were
not “discovered” in the same manner that an
archaeologist discovers a buried artifact or a
medical researcher discovers a virus. Instead,
they were invented. By describing mental disorders
as inventions, however, I do not mean
that they are “myths” (Szasz, 1974) or that the
distress of people who are labeled as mentally
disordered is not real. Instead, I mean that these
disorders do not “exist” and “have properties”
in the same manner that artifacts and viruses
do. For these reasons, a taxonomy of mental
disorders such as the DSM “does not simply
describe and classify characteristics of groups of
individuals, but . . . actively constructs a version
of both normal and abnormal . . . which is then
applied to individuals who end up being classified
as normal or abnormal” (Parker, Georgaca,
Harper, McLaughlin, & Stowell-Smith, 1995,
p. 93).
The illness ideology’s conception of “mental
disorder” and the various specific DSM categories
of mental disorders are not reflections and
mappings of psychological facts about people.
Instead, they are social artifacts that serve the
same sociocultural goals as our constructions of
race, gender, social class, and sexual orientation—
that of maintaining and expanding the
power of certain individuals and institutions and
maintaining social order, as defined by those in
power (Beall, 1993; Parker et al., 1995; Rosenblum
& Travis, 1996).
Another choice quote a little later:
Quote:
Discussions of these new disorders have
turned up at scientific meetings and are likely
to find a home in the DSM-V if the media and
mental health professions continue to collaborate
in their construction, and if treating them
and writing books about them becomes lucrative.
The trend is clear. First we see a pattern of
behaving, thinking, feeling, or desiring that deviates
from some fictional social norm or ideal;
or we identify a common complaint that, as
expected, is displayed with greater frequency
or severity by some people than others; or
we decide that a certain behavior is undesirable,
inconvenient, or disruptive. We then
give the pattern a medical-sounding name, preferably
of Greek or Latin origin. Eventually,
the new term may be reduced to an acronym,
such as OCD (obsessive-compulsive disorder),
ADHD (attention-deficit/hyperactive disorder),
and BDD (body dysmorphic disorder). The new
disorder then takes on a life of its own and becomes
a diseaselike entity. As news about “it”
spreads, people begin thinking they have “it”;
medical and mental health professionals begin
diagnosing and treating “it”; and clinicians and
clients begin demanding that health insurance
policies cover the “treatment” of “it.”
turned up at scientific meetings and are likely
to find a home in the DSM-V if the media and
mental health professions continue to collaborate
in their construction, and if treating them
and writing books about them becomes lucrative.
The trend is clear. First we see a pattern of
behaving, thinking, feeling, or desiring that deviates
from some fictional social norm or ideal;
or we identify a common complaint that, as
expected, is displayed with greater frequency
or severity by some people than others; or
we decide that a certain behavior is undesirable,
inconvenient, or disruptive. We then
give the pattern a medical-sounding name, preferably
of Greek or Latin origin. Eventually,
the new term may be reduced to an acronym,
such as OCD (obsessive-compulsive disorder),
ADHD (attention-deficit/hyperactive disorder),
and BDD (body dysmorphic disorder). The new
disorder then takes on a life of its own and becomes
a diseaselike entity. As news about “it”
spreads, people begin thinking they have “it”;
medical and mental health professionals begin
diagnosing and treating “it”; and clinicians and
clients begin demanding that health insurance
policies cover the “treatment” of “it.”
By all means, if you need disability accommodation or government money from the people in power get a so called expert to say you have Aspergers. But the idea that you are suffering from an objective, real disease is likely a naive one.
Yeah you're completely right!
I mean why would the most complex organ in the human body malfunction? Such a myth! There isn't AS, Schizophrenia, or depression. Its all make belief to collect government money! 
If you cant see it like a broken leg it must be fake. ...but seriously do you stop yourself and reread this garbage you're posting? Of course not, you're an NT. Despite my problems I am at least able to see reality far better then you delusional condescending NTs. Nice try at using big words you don't even understand to sound "smart" and talk with a false sense of entitlement to other ignorant NTs. I actually suspect you of being another troll that posted a similar post about AS not being a disability but rather a difference. I'm sorry you fail again, you can go home now and cry yourself to sleep. Nice try anyways. I am going to be blunt here. You're just another naive ignorant NT who reads some controversial unscientific pop-psychology book and believe everything in it 100%. Why don't you go read David Ike's books and then go tell everyone about the Reptilian Aliens taking over society. Its ironic that you mention naivety.
Last edited by Whimsi-Cal on 10 Mar 2009, 1:13 am, edited 2 times in total.
10 Mar 2009, 1:09 am
10 Mar 2009, 1:11 am
10 Mar 2009, 1:20 am
10 Mar 2009, 1:41 am
10 Mar 2009, 1:42 am
10 Mar 2009, 1:53 am
10 Mar 2009, 2:02 am
10 Mar 2009, 2:04 am
10 Mar 2009, 2:08 am
10 Mar 2009, 2:11 am
10 Mar 2009, 2:14 am
10 Mar 2009, 2:17 am
10 Mar 2009, 2:26 am
10 Mar 2009, 3:24 am
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| I have a thing for 'snooty' females |
20 Jun 2025, 4:40 am |
| What's the oldest, most eclectic electronic thing you own? |
16 Jul 2025, 3:46 am |
| Aspergers --> Spectrum change |
05 Jul 2025, 8:48 pm |
| How old do people think I am? |
07 Jul 2025, 1:27 am |
