Developmental Psychopathology – Foundational Concepts
Week 2: Developmental Psychopathology – Foundational Concepts
What might be some limitations to Wakefield’s (1997) conceptualisation of dysfunction as failure of the mechanism to perform their natural function?
Wakefield listed conduct disorder, separation anxiety disorder, substance abuse, and major depressive disorders as problematic diagnoses in the DSM because they do not meet the dysfunction requirements.
His conceptualisation of dysfunction reflects a medical approach toward understanding disorder—that something has gone wrong in an individual.
According to him, failure to meet social expectation alone cannot be criteria for a disorder.
This approach ignores the contextual factors and fails to take into account the dynamic interactions between the individual and his environment; something has to go wrong with the individual internally, not his interactions with the environment.
Moreover, there appears no clear way of defining what the natural functions are and this is made even more difficult with the constantly evolving social world that we live in.
Although there are obvious benefits in not labelling social conflicts as disorders, it dismisses the reality that humans are social creatures and are embedded within a certain social context. Part of normal functioning should, I argue, be about the ability of an individual to adapt and fit into society. Persistent problems of social functioning, for instance inability to abide by social rules, I argue, is significant and probably indicative of some form of dysfunction.
Wakefield concedes that disordered environment may induce dysfunction but only if it causes enduring breakdowns in internal mechanism. Such approach fails to appreciate that there is a human- environment interaction that may perpetuate and exacerbate various conditions.
For instance, consider adjustment disorder that is included in the DSM. According to Wakefield, this would probably join the list of problematic disorders
What might be some limitations to Wakefield’s (1997) conceptualisation of dysfunction as failure of the mechanism to perform their natural function?
Wakefield listed conduct disorder, separation anxiety disorder, substance abuse, and major depressive disorders as problematic diagnoses in the DSM because they do not meet the dysfunction requirements.
His conceptualisation of dysfunction reflects a medical approach toward understanding disorder—that something has gone wrong in an individual.
According to him, failure to meet social expectation alone cannot be criteria for a disorder.
This approach ignores the contextual factors and fails to take into account the dynamic interactions between the individual and his environment; something has to go wrong with the individual internally, not his interactions with the environment.
Moreover, there appears no clear way of defining what the natural functions are and this is made even more difficult with the constantly evolving social world that we live in.
Although there are obvious benefits in not labelling social conflicts as disorders, it dismisses the reality that humans are social creatures and are embedded within a certain social context. Part of normal functioning should, I argue, be about the ability of an individual to adapt and fit into society. Persistent problems of social functioning, for instance inability to abide by social rules, I argue, is significant and probably indicative of some form of dysfunction.
Wakefield concedes that disordered environment may induce dysfunction but only if it causes enduring breakdowns in internal mechanism. Such approach fails to appreciate that there is a human- environment interaction that may perpetuate and exacerbate various conditions.
For instance, consider adjustment disorder that is included in the DSM. According to Wakefield, this would probably join the list of problematic disorders