Special Issue: Renewing Phenomenological Psychopathology

 

The Renewing Phenomenological Psychopathology project is an International Exchange Award funded by the Wellcome Trust that acts as a catalyst for innovative and interdisciplinary in the field of phenomenological psychopathology. The project leaders are Professor Matthew Broome and Professor Giovanni Stanghellini. 

Through this grant, we created a network of diverse international scholars from across disciplines and career stages. This was formed through awards (including international exchange fellowships, small grants, and knowledge exchange events). The aim of the project is to revitalize phenomenological psychopathology for the 21st century as a democratic discipline with a historicised and inclusive account of the experience of mental illness.

While we had made some significant headway in disrupting this field, more work needed to be done. For this reason, we sought to create a special issue on the theme of Renewing Phenomenological Psychopathology. Through this special issue, we ask: What is the future of phenomenological psychopathology? We invited contributors to shake up previously sedimented ideas in phenomenological psychopathology and reconstruct this vital phenomenological tradition. Due to the volume of high-quality submissions, the special issue was split into two parts. 

The first part focused on how phenomenological psychopathology can be applied in new ways to gain a deeper understanding of specific psychiatric conditions. One of the core achievements attributed to phenomenological psychopathology has been a richer understanding of an array of psychiatric experiences that had previously been limited to biological accounts. However, not only has our understanding of these conditions drastically transformed since the conception of phenomenological psychopathology in the early 1900s, but entirely new conditions have been recognised and defined. 

Section one of the special issue explores the following mental health conditions (or neurodiversities): Schizophrenia, Depression, Autism and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The papers in the first section either challenge hitherto engrained ideas attached to a given condition or apply phenomenological psychopathology to conditions that have been overlooked by the discipline thus far. 

The second section of the special issue strives to revitalise the very methodology of phenomenological psychopathology. Although the vestiges of phenomenology can be found across disciplines, phenomenological psychopathology has done little to engage with fields outside of philosophy and psychiatry. Advances in disciplines such as anthropology, sociology, neuroscience, critical race theory, and linguistics offer exciting new opportunities which are missed by such a guarded approach.

The second section of the special issue coalesces around three key themes. The first theme involves addressing and ameliorating inequalities in phenomenological psychopathology. The second theme involves examining the role of value and virtue in phenomenological psychopathology. The third theme focuses on fusing phenomenological psychopathology with new approaches across disciplines. 

After a long period of obscurity, phenomenological psychopathology has re-emerged. A new focus on the patient’s voice has given the approach a valued place among once more dominant methodologies. The aim of this special issue is not to sever our roots. Rather, we hope to bring all that is fruitful in the tradition of phenomenological psychopathology into the present, opening it up to new possibilities.

Dr Lucienne Spencer is a Postdoctoral Researcher in Mental Health Ethics located within the Neuroscience, Ethics and Society (NEUROSEC) Team in the Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford. Her research primarily focuses on phenomenology, epistemic injustice and the philosophy of psychiatry.

Psychiatry as mind-shaping

 In this post, project EPIC postdoc Jodie Russell summarises her recent paper “Psychiatry as Mind-shaping”, published in Erkenntnis:

I make the case that researchers in mental health, clinicians and the wider public participate in a process called mind-shaping. By highlighting the involvement of these individuals in shaping the minds of people with disordered experiences, we can better understand phenomena like looping effects (when the behaviour of the person being labelled changes in response to that label, which in turn changes the meaning of the label). Moreover, characterising psychiatry as mind-shaping also helps us understand harms like epistemic injustice in a new light. But, first, let me unpack what I mean by psychiatry as mind-shaping.

Mind-shaping is a particular theory of social cognition – the study of how we understand each other. In contrast to traditional theories of social cognition, where we try to ‘read’ the minds of other people, the mind-shaping thesis proposes that understanding occurs through trying to get another person to conform to some set of shared rules. For example, I understand that my partner is hungry because their behaviour conforms to certain norms of being a ‘hungry person’, i.e., they rub their stomach, look wistfully at the kitchen, or graze on near-by biscuits. In this example, I try to understand what ‘type’ of person my partner is trying to be, assuming their behaviour conforms to some norms of that ‘type’ that I also adhere to.

In this way, I argue that researchers and clinicians are trying to understand what kinds of people individuals with disordered experiences are. In other words, clinicians and researchers might try and understand whether someone is a ‘well’ or ‘unwell’ person, a person with schizophrenia, or a person with a brain disease etc.

However, under the mind-shaping view, this process of categorizing people comes with certain expectations; in order for social understanding to be successful, it may be necessary to conform to certain norms. For example, for my partner and I to successfully coordinate over our shared task of making food for dinner, I really need to know that my partner is hungry. If they act hungry when they aren’t, we’ll make food for no reason. If they don’t act hungry when they are, my partner starves (if they are feeling melodramatic). Either way, if my partner is unreliable in conforming to norms, it makes working together to make dinner more difficult, and communication in general might struggle if they are not in some way reliable. There are therefore certain expectations at play in social understanding; if you are a hungry person, you should act like it. This is what it means to be mind-shaped.

This has, however, some unintended consequences when it comes to mental health research, namely, that individuals with mental disorder who are labelled may be prone to particular “expectancy effects”. In other words, by being labelled or studied in a particular way, as a particular kind of person, people with mental disorder may be obligated to act in certain ways. One such case study of this can be seen in a study conducted by Örmonet al. (2014). They noticed that the women in their study who had experienced abuse did not often have their experiences validated by clinicians, with their history of abuse considered irrelevant to diagnosis, and thus the women did not receive what they felt was the appropriate care. As such, the women responded to this treatment by changing their behaviour to conform to particular disorder categories that were seen as worthy of care (such as bipolar disorder). In this case, I argue that the women conformed to norms of being mentally unwell that clinicians typically expected to find; by understanding their patients as unwell, the clinicians were then able to provide some kind of care for these women. In this way, both the patients and clinicians were mind-shaped in order to coordinate on some goal (getting care for the women).

The consequences of this particular case study, however, was that the struggle of the women to have their abuse acknowledged was then interpreted by clinical staff through the lens of mental illness. This struggle was then either a mental health problem or secondary to the mental health problem. It is in this way that I think we should pay closer attention to the effects of mind-shaping, and how it may perpetuate epistemic injustices. Given that a core part of social understanding is the expectation we conform to shared norms, we may not only present very narrow options to individuals with mental disorder if they want to be understood by others (e.g. through the lens of specific disorder categories that may or may not fit their experiences), we may also exclude as irrelevant, or un-understandable, those behaviours, thoughts and feelings, which don’t fit our expectations but that are nevertheless important to the individual in question. The solution, I would want to propose, is giving people with mental disorder more agency to determine what norms are in play so that they might be better understood on their own terms.