Turning the DSM Against Itself Diagnosing the Disorders of Western Psychology

In a bold new approach to understanding societal issues, scholars Kaori Wada and Karlee D. Fellner are using the language of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) to diagnose systemic power disorders. By reframing common problems like greed, land accumulation, and historical amnesia, they are challenging traditional healthcare frameworks and advocating for a more inclusive understanding of mental health.

Reframing Problems as Systemic Disorders

Instead of focusing on individual distress, Wada and Fellner analyze wider societal issues through psychiatric diagnosis. They see greed as a form of addiction, land accumulation as pathological hoarding, and historical amnesia as a dissociative disorder. This perspective shifts the conversation from personal to systemic, addressing the roots of many societal ills.

The Role of Sociodiagnostics

Building on Frantz Fanon’s concept of sociodiagnostics, Wada and Fellner view psychiatric diagnosis as a cultural product of colonialism. They refer to this phenomenon as psycholonization—the psychological subjugation of Indigenous peoples through Western mental health frameworks. By using the language of the DSM, they aim to expose and diagnose the colonial logics embedded in mental health categories.

“The DSM and psychologizing discourses are cultural products born out of coloniality, which continue to serve as tools for the subjugation of iyiniwak (Indigenous peoples). By using the very language of the DSM, we diagnose the colonial logics and ideologies inherent in these categories,” write Wada and Fellner.

Challenging Colonial Artifacts

Wada and Fellner argue that if psychiatric diagnosis is a colonial artifact, mental health care itself may be a tool of social control rather than healing. This perspective has profound implications not only for Indigenous communities but also for anyone whose suffering is medicalized rather than understood in historical and political contexts.

By reframing these issues, Wada and Fellner are encouraging a more holistic view of well-being, suggesting that “symptoms” are calls to action for medicines, wisdom, and collective wellness rather than individual pathologies.

The Impact on Mental Health Care

The implications of this work extend beyond academic discourse. If mental health frameworks like the DSM are seen as tools of colonialism, they may be perpetuating subjugation. By critiquing these frameworks, Wada and Fellner are challenging the broader structures of power in mental health care and advocating for a more culturally responsive approach.

Imagining Alternatives

This critique opens up possibilities for alternative models of wellness and healing. By understanding distress as a response to systemic issues rather than individual weaknesses, Wada and Fellner’s work encourages a rethinking of how communities respond to suffering. This could lead to more effective and inclusive mental health policies and practices.

Conclusion

The work of Wada and Fellner represents a significant shift in the way we understand and address mental health issues. By reframing systemic problems through psychiatric diagnosis, they are critiquing the colonial underpinnings of Western mental health frameworks and advocating for more inclusive and responsive care. Their approach holds promise for more just and equitable mental health practices.

As we continue to grapple with the complexities of mental health, the perspectives of scholars like Wada and Fellner offer valuable insights and a call to action for greater system-wide change.