Adriaens Pieter R, De Block Andreas
University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
J Med Philos. 2013 Apr;38(2):107-27. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jht008. Epub 2013 Mar 4.
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.
本质主义是心理健康研究中最普遍存在的问题之一。许多精神科医生仍然认为,他们的疾病分类法迟早会让他们把握自然的本质,识别并描绘出精神障碍的本质。此外,根据社会心理学最近的研究,一些外行人也倾向于沿着类似的本质主义思路思考。本文的主要目的是强调一些可能解释精神障碍本质主义观念持续存在及其流行的过程。其中一个过程是外行人将概念结构本质化的普遍倾向,包括生物、社会和精神科类别。另一个过程涉及生物精神病学的吸引力。这一精神病学流派倡导一种分类和生物学的方法,可能强化了外行人对精神障碍早已存在的本质主义观念。因此,关于我们为何将精神障碍本质化的问题,是文化趋势如何聚焦于自然倾向、反之亦然以及两者如何相互促进的一个突出例子。