CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 23Feminist Epistemology and Gender StudiesMental Health and PsychiatryEpistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics

‘Isn’t Everyone a Little OCD?’ The Epistemic Harms of Wrongful Depathologization

Open access
Spencer, Lucienne, Carel, Havi·2021·Philosophy of Medicine
DOI 10.5195/philmed.2021.19
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article develops the concept of wrongful depathologization, in which a psychiatric disorder is simultaneously stigmatized (because of sanist attitudes towards mental illness) and trivialized (as it is not considered a “proper” illness). We use OCD as a case study to argue that cumulatively these two effects generate a profound epistemic injustice to OCD sufferers, and possibly to those with other mental disorders. We show that even seemingly positive stereotypes attached to mental disorders give rise to both testimonial injustice and wilful hermeneutical ignorance. We thus expose an insidious form of epistemic harm that has been overlooked in the literature.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5195/philmed.2021.19

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The distinction between medicalization and pathologization separates harmful pathologization inherent to the medical deficit approach and social stigma and prejudice toward autistics from medicalization which enables individuals to receive a diagnosis and treatment, if they so wish.

    “This distinction clearly separates the harmful pathologization that is inherent to the medical deficit approach and social stigma and prejudice toward autistics from the medicalization which enables individuals to receive a diagnosis and treatment, if they so wish.”

    From Neurodiversity, epistemic injustice, and the good human life (2022) · cites this paper as Spencer & Carel, 2021

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Barnes, Elizabeth. 2016. The Minority Body: A Theory of Disability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  2. Bonnington, Oliver and Diana Rose. 2014. “Exploring Stigmatisation among People Diagnosed with Either Bipolar Disorder or Borderline Personality Disorder: A Critical Realist Analysis.” Social Science & Medicine 123: 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.10.048. · DOI
  3. Bueter, Anke. 2019. “Epistemic Injustice and Psychiatric Classification.” Philosophy of Science 86, no. 5: 1064–1074. https://doi.org/10.1086/705443. · DOI
  4. Chapman, Robert. 2019. “Neurodiversity Theory and Its Discontents: Autism, Schizophrenia, and the Social Model of Disability.” In The Bloomsbury Companion to Philosophy of Psychiatry, edited by Şerife Tekin and Robyn Bluhm, 371–390. London: Bloomsbury Academic. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781350024090.ch-018. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Cochran, Susan D., Jack Drescher, Eszter Kismödi, Alain Giami, Claudia García-Moreno, Elham Atalla, Adele Marais, Elisabeth Meloni Vieira, and Geoffrey M. Reed. 2014. “Proposed Declassification of Disease Categories Related to Sexual Orientation in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11).” Bulletin of the World Health Organization 92, no. 9: 672–679. https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.14.135541. · DOI
  6. Crichton, Paul, Havi Carel and Ian James Kidd. 2017. “Epistemic Injustice in Psychiatry.” British Journal of Psychiatry Bulletin, 41, no. 2: 65–70. https://doi.org/10.1192/pb.bp.115.050682. · DOI
  7. Davis, Emmalon. 2016. “Typecasts, Tokens, and Spokespersons: A Case for Credibility Excess as Testimonial Injustice.” Hypatia 31, no. 3: 485–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12251. · DOI
  8. Davis, Emmalon. 2018. “On Epistemic Appropriation.” Ethics 128, no. 4: 702–727. https://doi.org/10.1086/697490. · DOI
  9. Drummond, Lynne M. 2018. Obsessive Compulsive Disorder: All You Want to Know about OCD For People Living with OCD, Carers, and Clinicians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Fennell, Dana and Michael Boyd. 2014. “Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder in the Media.” Deviant Behavior 35, no. 9: 669–686. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1080/01639625.2013.872526. · DOI
  11. Graby, Steve. 2015. “Neurodiversity: Bridging the Gap between the Disabled People’s Movement and the Mental Health System Survivors’ Movement.” In Madness, Distress and the Politics of Disablement, edited by Helen Spandler, Jill Anderson, and Bob Sapey, 231–44. Bristol: Policy Press.
  12. Halfmann, Drew. 2012. “Recognizing Medicalization and Demedicalization: Discourses, Practices, and Identities.” Health 16, no. 2: 186–207. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1363459311403947. · DOI
  13. Huang, Yanshu, Paul G. Davies, Chris G. Sibley, and Danny Osborne. 2016. “Benevolent Sexism, Attitudes toward Motherhood, and Reproductive Rights: A Multi-Study Longitudinal Examination of Abortion Attitudes.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 42, no. 7: 970–984. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167216649607. · DOI
  14. Kay, Aaron C., Martin V. Day, Mark P. Zanna, and A. David Nussbaum. 2013. “The Insidious (and Ironic) Effects of Positive Stereotypes.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49, no. 2: 287–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.11.003 · DOI
  15. Kidd, Ian James. 2019. “Pathophobia, Illness, and Vices.” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 27, no. 2: 286–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2019.1612625. · DOI
  16. Krafft-Ebing, Richard Von. 1899. Psychopathia Sexualis. London: Hogarth Press.
  17. Kurs, Rena and Alexander Grinshpoon. 2018. “Vulnerability of Individuals with Mental Disorders to Epistemic Injustice in Both Clinical and Social Domains.” Ethics & Behaviour 28, no. 4: 336–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2017.1365302. · DOI
  18. LeBlanc, Stephanie and Elizabeth Anne Kinsella. 2016. “Toward Epistemic Justice: A Critically Reflexive Examination of ‘Sanism’ and Implications for Knowledge Generation.” Studies in Social Justice 10, no. 1: 59–78. https://doi.org/10.26522/ssj.v10i1.1324. · DOI
  19. Li, Ang, Dongdong Jiao, and Tingshao Zhu. 2018. “Detecting Depression Stigma on Social Media: A Linguistic Analysis.” Journal of Affective Disorders 232: 358–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.02.087. · DOI
  20. McCarty, Ryan J., Andrew G. Guzick, Lawton K. Swan, and Joseph P.H. McNamara. 2017. “Stigma and Recognition of Different Types of Symptoms in OCD.” Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders 12: 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocrd.2016.12.006. · DOI
  21. Medina, José. 2011. “The Relevance of Credibility Excess in a Proportional View of Epistemic Injustice: Differential Epistemic Authority and the Social Imaginary.” Social Epistemology 25, no. 1: 15–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2010.534568. · DOI
  22. Pavelko, Rachelle L. and Jessica Gall Myrick. 2019. “Measuring Trivialization of Mental Illness: Developing a Scale of Perceptions That Mental Illness Symptoms Are Beneficial.” Health Communication 35, no. 5: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1573296. · DOI
  23. Perlin, Michael L. 1992. “On Sanism.” SMU Law Review 46, no. 2: 373–408. https://doi.org/10.1037/10379-002. · DOI
  24. Pfohl, Bruce and Nancee S. Blum. 1991. “Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder: A Review of Available Data and Recommendations for DSM-IV.” Journal of Personality Disorders 5, no. 4: 363–375. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1521/pedi.1991.5.4.363. · DOI
  25. Pohlhaus Jr, Gaile. 2012. “Relational Knowing and Epistemic Injustice: Toward a Theory of Wilful Hermeneutical Ignorance.” Hypatia 27, no. 4: 715–735. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01222.x. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Rashed, Mohammed Abouelleil. 2019. “In Defense of Madness: The Problem of Disability.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 44, no. 2: 150–174. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhy016. · DOI
  27. Sanati, Abdi and Michalis Kyratsous. 2015. “Epistemic Injustice in Assessment of Delusions.” Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 21: 479–485. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12347. · DOI
  28. Scrutton, Anastasia Philippa. 2017. “Epistemic Injustice and Mental Illness.” In The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice, edited by Ian James Kidd, José Medina, and Gaile Pohlhaus Jr. Abingdon: Routledge.
  29. Seah, Xin Yi, Xiang Cong Tham, Netty Ryanie Kamaruzaman, and Piyanee Klainin Yobas. 2017. “Knowledge, Attitudes and Challenges of Healthcare Professionals Managing People with Eating Disorders: A Literature Review.” Archives of Psychiatric Nursing 31, no. 1: 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnu.2016.09.002. · DOI
  30. Shakespeare, Tom. 2018. Disability: The Basics. Abingdon: Routledge.
  31. Sholl, Jonathan. 2017. “The Muddle of Medicalization: Pathologizing or Medicalizing?” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 38, no. 4: 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-017-9414-z. · DOI
  32. Thornicroft, Graham. 2006. Shunned: Discrimination against People with Mental Illness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  33. West, Lindsey M., Roxanne A. Donovan, and Amanda R. Daniel. 2016. “The Price of Strength: Black College Women’s Perspectives on the Strong Black Woman Stereotype.” Women & Therapy 39, no. 3–4: 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/02703149.2016.1116871. · DOI
  34. Spencer, L., & Carel, H. (2021). ‘Isn’t Everyone a Little OCD?’: The Epistemic Harms of Wrongful Depathologization. Philosophy of Medicine, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.5195/pom.2021.19 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Spencer, L., & Carel, H.
Affiliations
University of Bristol (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Philosophy of Medicine
Publisher
University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
Published
2021-04-19
Volume
2
Issue
1
ISSN
2692-3963 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.5195/philmed.2021.19
OpenAlex
W3137824707
Cited by
23
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
FWCI
4.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Philosophy of Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PhilSci-Archive (University of Pittsburgh) (acceptedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
University of Bristol
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
Keywords
obsessive-compulsive disorder, epistemic injustice, testimonial injustice, mental health stigma, sanism, mental illness, epistemic harm

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review