In their publications, David Rosenhan, "On Being Sane in Insane Places" and Robert Spitzer, "On Pseudoscience in Science," differ about the basic nature of mental illness and disorder. How would you characterize their approaches?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Rosenhan's approach in "On Being Sane in Insane Places" can be characterized as a constructionist one. He argues that mental illness is a social construct and that diagnosis is based on subjective judgments rather than objective criteria. He shows how normal behavior can be interpreted as symptomatic of mental illness and that once labeled mentally ill, the individual is stigmatized and may be treated with disregard.

On the other hand, Spitzer's approach in "On Pseudoscience in Science" can be characterized as an essentialist one. He argues that mental illnesses have a biological basis and can be diagnosed based on objective criteria. He critiques the prevalent views in the field of mental health that do not follow rigorous scientific principles and argues for a more systematic approach to diagnosis and treatment. Thus, there is a fundamental difference in their views on the basic nature of mental illness and disorder.

In Their Publications, David Rosenhan, "On Being Sane in Insane