Social Construction of Mental Health Diagnosis and the DSM
This paper examines how mental health diagnoses differ fundamentally from medical diagnoses, arguing that psychiatric labels are largely social constructs shaped by cultural values, political agendas, and institutional interests rather than objective biological realities. The paper traces the history of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) from its origins in the 1952 APA publication through DSM-IV, showing how the number of recognized disorders grew from 66 to 397 over four decades. It also analyzes the medicalization of deviant behavior, the political pressures that have added and removed conditions such as homosexuality, and why mental health diagnoses—unlike medical diagnoses—cannot exist independently of their behavioral symptoms.
- Introduction: Diagnosis in Mental Health: Mental health labels as social constructs vs. medical diagnoses
- The Social Construction of Mental Illnesses: Historical origins of psychiatric classification and the DSM
- The DSM and the Politics of Diagnosis: Exponential growth of disorders and political influences on DSM editions
- The Medicalization of Deviant Behavior: How society reframes immoral behavior as illness for social control
- Conclusion and Findings: Symptoms define mental illness; diagnoses reflect social judgments
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Uses a clear contrast between medical and mental health diagnosis to anchor the central argument, making an abstract sociological claim immediately tangible for readers.
- Grounds the theoretical argument in concrete historical evidence—the growth of DSM categories from 66 to 397 disorders and the removal of homosexuality—giving the analysis empirical weight.
- Effectively uses rhetorical questions (e.g., "If they were voted out of existence, would they cease to exist and to kill people?") to challenge the reader and sharpen the critique.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates the technique of historical-sociological critique: it traces an institution (the DSM) across time to show how its contents reflect shifting social and political values rather than accumulating scientific knowledge. By documenting how disorders are added and removed by vote, the author operationalizes the concept of social construction in a concrete, falsifiable way.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by establishing the conceptual distinction between medical and psychiatric diagnosis. It then provides historical context through the evolution of the DSM, followed by a focused analysis of the medicalization of deviance. A brief illustrative example (the Ken Bianchi case) bridges theory and real-world application. The conclusion synthesizes the argument, noting that while research can be more objective than clinical judgment, funding decisions themselves remain politically influenced.
Introduction: Diagnosis in Mental Health
Diagnosis is the process of applying labels to describe people's problems. Medical doctors do it: you have appendicitis, ulcers, heart disease, or cancer. Dentists do it: you have periodontal disease, cavities, or an abscessed tooth. Psychotherapists do it too: you are paranoid, bipolar or manic-depressive, depressed, or schizophrenic.
In medicine, people have conditions. In mental health, people are their conditions. They are depressed, schizophrenic, bipolar, and anxious. This is not a simple matter of differences in terminology. It represents how our society—and particularly how mental health practitioners—thinks of people with emotional and behavioral problems. It is part of the social construction of mental diseases. Through these differences in phrasing, people may lose their individual identities, at least partially, when labels are applied so decisively to them.
To understand this point, remember that one key difference between medical diagnoses and those in mental health is that the latter are largely social constructs rather than diseases of the body. Although some conditions are heavily influenced by biological factors—for example, schizophrenia and manic-depressive illness—all diagnostic categories in the field of mental health rely on social behavior. They are, in effect, reflections of social judgments placed on behaviors that we find discomforting and disturbing.
Mental health diagnoses are not accurate and direct reflections of physical conditions, even when they include physical components. If you have a virus, you have an alien organism inside your body causing damage. That is not the case in mental health. More importantly, identifying what is and is not included as a mental "disorder" serves certain social and political ends. Social values determine what behavior is acceptable and what is not, and unacceptable behavior can be labeled a disorder. The types of behaviors identified as "disordered" change as the values of society change.
In medicine, an ulcer is an ulcer, even though the means of diagnosing and treating it may change. In mental health, different disorders come and go; the frequency with which they are assigned waxes and wanes, and even the symptoms change from time to time—all through cultural, sociological, and political processes. A few decades ago, psychiatrists classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. However, pressure from gay and lesbian political coalitions forced the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to reassess its approach, and homosexuality has now been largely removed from the official list of disorders. Whether a behavior constitutes a mental disorder or simply a variation of normal behavior arises from these kinds of social valuing processes. These values—at least as much as any gains in our scientific knowledge—determine how we think about emotional disorders, what symptoms will be defined as "illnesses," and who bears responsibility for correcting the problems defined.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.