This book chronicles how American psychiatry went from its psychoanalytic heyday in the 1940s and '50s, through the virulent anti-psychiatry of the 1960s and '70s, into the late 20th-century descriptive, criteria-grounded model of mental disorders.

Diagnosing Mental Illness -- The Initial DSMs -- The Path to a Diagnostic Revolution -- The DSM-III -- The DSM-IIIR and DSM-IV -- The DSM-5's Failed Revolution -- The DSM as a Social Creation.

In 2013, the American Psychiatric Association published the 5th edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Often referred to as the “bible” of psychiatry, the manual only classifies mental disorders and does not explain them or guide their treatment. While science should be the basis of any diagnostic system, to date, there is no knowledge on whether most conditions listed in the manual are true diseases. Moreover, in DSM-5 the overall definition of mental disorder is weak, failing to distinguish psychopathology from normality. In spite of all the progress that has been made in neuroscience over the last few decades, the psychiatric community is no closer to understanding the etiology and pathogenesis of mental disorders than it was fifty years ago. In Making the DSM-5, prominent experts delve into the debate about psychiatric nosology and examine the conceptual and pragmatic issues underlying the new manual. While retracing the historic controversy over DSM, considering the political context and economic impact of the manual, and focusing on what was revised or left unchanged in the new edition, this timely volume addresses the main concerns of the future of psychiatry and questions whether the DSM legacy can truly improve the specialty and advance its goals.

“Gary Greenberg has become the Dante of our psychiatric age, and the DSM-5 is his Inferno.” —Errol Morris Since its debut in 1952, the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders has set down the “official” view on what constitutes mental illness. Homosexuality, for instance, was a mental illness until 1973. Each revision has created controversy, but the DSM-5 has taken fire for encouraging doctors to diagnose more illnesses—and to prescribe sometimes unnecessary or harmful medications. Respected author and practicing psychotherapist Gary Greenberg embedded himself in the war that broke out over the fifth edition, and returned with an unsettling tale. Exposing the deeply flawed process behind the DSM-5’s compilation, The Book of Woe reveals how the manual turns suffering into a commodity—and made the APA its own biggest beneficiary.

When it was first published in 1980, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition—univer-sally known as DSM-III—embodied a radical new method for identifying psychiatric illness. Kirk and Kutchins challenge the general understanding about the research data and the pro-cess that led to the peer acceptance of DSM-III. Their original and controversial reconstruction of that moment concen-trates on how a small group of researchers interpreted their findings about a specific problem—psychiatric reliability—to promote their beliefs about mental illness and to challenge the then-dominant Freudian paradigm.

A persuasive and passionate plea from two mental health professionals to ease use of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders under their belief that it is leading to an over-diagnosed society. For many health professionals, the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is an indispensable resource. As the standard reference book for psychiatrists and psychotherapist everywhere, the DSM has had an inestimable influence on the way medical professionals diagnosis mental disorders in their patients. But with a push to label clients with pathological disorders in order to get reimbursed by insurance companies, the purpose of the DSM is no longer serving as a reference book. Instead, it is acting as a list of things that can qualify a patient’s diagnosis. In Making Us Crazy, Stuart Kirk and Herb Kutchins evaluate how the DSM has become the influence behind diagnoses that assassinate character and slander the opposition, often for political or monetary gain. By examining how the reference book serves as a source to label every phobia and quirk that arises in a patient, Kirk and Kutchins question the overuse of the DSM by today’s mental health professionals.

This book explores the purpose of clinical psychological and psychiatric diagnosis, and provides a persuasive case for moving away from the traditional practice of psychiatric classification. It discusses the validity and reliability of classification-based approaches to clinical diagnosis, and frames them in their broader historical and societal context. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is used across the world in research and a range of mental health settings; here, Stijn Vanheule argues that the diagnostic reliability of the DSM is overrated, built on a limited biomedical approach to mental disorders that neglects context, and ultimately breeds stigma. The book subsequently makes a passionate plea for a more detailed approach to the study of mental suffering by means of case formulation. Starting from literature on qualitative research the author makes clear how to guarantee the quality of clinical case formulations.