Ian Hacking Reviews DSM-5: Why Would The London Review of Books Have the Psychiatric Diagnostic Manual Reviewed by a Philosopher?

DSM-5 (1) is the latest edition of the psychiatric diagnostic manual. Why would The London Review of Books have it reviewed by a philosopher (2)?

Mr. Hacking has written about psychiatric issues previously, but does he know what he’s talking about?

He doesn’t. For example, he says that before lithium was approved for the treatment of manic-depression (bipolar disorder) in the 1970s, “there was really no effective chemical treatment for any mental illness.” However, the fact is, modern psychiatric drugs date from the 1950s. The significance of lithium was that the previously available medications for psychosis could be used to treat either schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, whereas lithium was effective in treating bipolar disorder, but relatively ineffective in treating schizophrenia. And since the medication for both disorders was no longer identical, the diagnostic distinction between the two disorders became more important.

The above is well-known and easy to look up, but Mr. Hacking didn’t know it and didn’t bother to check his facts. The latter is more significant than the former.

So why would anyone go to him for opinions about psychiatry? And why would The London Review of Books have DSM-5 reviewed by a philosopher?

Added Jan. 3rd: The last philosopher who could write with authority about psychiatry was William James (1842-1910).

1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. Arlington, VA, American Psychiatric Association, 2013.

2. Ian Hacking. “Lost in the Forest.” London Review of Books, Vol. 35, No. 15, 8 August 2013.