Operation ASD: Philanthrocapitalism, Spectrumization, and the Role of the Parent

Psychiatrization of Society: A Conceptual Framework and Call for Transdisciplinary Research

“…Typical drivers of bottom-up psychiatrization might be people searching for recognition of subjective suffering or difference through clinical diagnosis (47), people with mild or unspecific "symptoms" using professional healthcare services without clear indication (107,108), or the demand of parents or other caregivers for diagnoses and treatment of perceived learning and behavioral disorders (109,110). Individual interests might also be organized in and articulated by advocacy groups trying to raise awareness for certain diseases and stimulate political action in favor of people with specific diagnoses (110,111). In the aforementioned literature and related publications, several examples for bottom-up psychiatrization can be found, although the traditional view of psychiatric expansion lays more emphasis on top-down processes.…”

Psychiatrization of, with and by children: Drawing a complex picture

“…His case involves psychologists and pedagogues, who had both been trained by a team of psychiatrists specializing in ADHD, who drew upon the DSM and UK guidelines to develop standardized tools and measuring scales for use in Poland. That the resulting diagnosis led to extra support which was legally binding for the school demonstrates the immense power of DSM criteria, and the ways diagnostic 'boss texts' are activated by different actors, sometimes to enable support and care (Hande et al, 2016).…”

“…This top-down supported bottom-up mobilization might be especially powerful, if it mimics, or names itself as a, social justice movement, for example, by appropriating the rhetoric of antidiscrimination or to present itself as a form of scientific enlightenment. This links to patient and parent advocacy groups as key agents of psychiatrization (Hande et al, 2016).…”

“…Numerous academic works analyse the narratives of variously positioned actors involved in the practices of caring for children with psychiatric diagnoses – including mothers (Blum, 2015; Singh, 2004), teachers (Malacrida, 2004), and clinicians (Rafalovich, 2005). There is also a rich ethnographic literature of children’s mental health services (Davis, 2016; LeFrançois, 2008; Liegghio, 2016), auto-ethnography by professionals involved in psychiatrization (LeFrancois, 2013), and institutional ethnography of parents’ involvement in psychiatrization (Hande et al, 2016). Other literature focuses on the production of psy- and neuro-knowledge (Hollin and Pilnick, 2015), how this influences children’s encounters with psychiatry (Choudhury, 2010; Rapp, 2011), and how medical uncertainty is managed in various settings, including clinics (Buchbinder, 2015).…”

“…In this discussion, we reflect upon ways in which young people get engaged in ‘zones of potential circulation’ (Lakoff, 2005: 63) of psy-knowledges and practices, and associated commercial interests. Zones of circulation include global diagnostic manuals, such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( DSM ), currently in its fifth edition (American Psychiatric Association (APA), 2013); the ways diagnostic manuals, as the primary ‘boss texts’ of psychiatry, are activated by different actors for different purposes (Hande et al, 2016: 87); how diagnostic criteria circulate to professionals and more widely, for example, through their inclusion in University textbooks (Te Meerman et al, 2017); and broader scale transnational flows of psy-knowledge (Bergey et al, 2018), including the power dynamics and coloniality that structure the circulation of psychiatric knowledge and practices in relation to children around the world (Béhague, 2018; Mills, 2014; Witeska-Młynarczyk, 2019).…”