TITLE: Examining the Contribution of Social Constructionism to the
Knowledge of Psychological Disorders
SUBMITTED BY: RUSHAALI SHYAMAL
SEMESTER: 2
ENROLMENT NO: A91316623023
M.A. APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY
BATCH 2023-2025
COURSE CODE: PSYC692
COURSE TITLE: PSYCHOPATHOLOGY
SUBMITTED TO: Dr. Ritesh Kumar
1
TITLE: Examining the Contribution of Social Constructionism to the Knowledge of Psychological
Disorders
According to Kevin White, social constructionism calls into question the accepted theory that defines
psychiatric diseases as universally applicable and objectively measurable phenomena. According to social
constructionism, our perceptions of illness and the body are not fixed in stone, but rather influenced by
socio-historical settings. This paper examines the benefits and drawbacks of social constructionism in
regards to psychological diseases, using academic literature to support pro and con arguments for and
against the paradigm in question.
Agreement with Social Constructionism: Social constructionism provides important understandings of the
changing nature of psychiatric illnesses. Historically, as society norms and values have changed, diagnostic
standards and classifications have also changed. For example, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD) was later redefined as attention deficit disorder (ADD), indicating changes in knowledge and
cultural views on these disorders (White, 2004). Furthermore, studies have shown how cultural variables
affect how symptoms present and how people with psychiatric problems seek assistance (Kir Mayer, 2001).
Moreover, social constructionism emphasizes how power relations shape diagnostic classifications and
therapeutic approaches. Critics contend that diagnosing typical variations in human experience through the
medicalization of particular behaviours may benefit pharmaceutical firms and medical practitioners (Pilgrim
& Rogers, 1999). A critical analysis of institutional procedures and power structures within the mental health
field is encouraged by social constructionism, which recognizes the socio-political environment in which
psychological diseases are identified and treated.
Social constructionism recognizes the variety of ways that anxiety manifests itself in various cultural
contexts. For instance, non-Western cultures are more likely to experience sensory processing, which is the
physical manifestation of psychological anxiety (Kir Mayer & Young, 1998). This variation highlights how
cultural norms and beliefs affect how psychological symptoms are presented and understood.
Gender norms have an impact on how psychological suffering is experienced and perceived, and social
constructionism clarifies this. For instance, because of cultural ideals of masculinity, men may be less likely
to seek treatment for mental health problems (Addis & Mahalik, 2003). It is essential to comprehend how
gender roles are socially constructed in order to create inclusive and successful mental health interventions.
Societal constructionism emphasizes the ways in which advocacy groups and societal movements have
shaped how psychiatric diseases are understood and treated. For example, the mid-20th century
deinstitutionalization movement pushed back against the dominance of mental hospitals and in favour of
2
community-based care (Mechanic, 1989). These movements show how social factors and the conversation
about mental health interact dynamically.
Disagreement with Social Constructionism: Although social constructionism provides insightful
information, it runs the risk of ignoring the biological causes of psychological illnesses. Thanks to
developments in neuroscience, a number of mental health problems have been linked to genetic,
neurochemical, and neuroanatomical factors (Insel et al., 2010). For example, research has shown that
people with ADHD have different brain morphology and function than neurotypical controls (Castellanos et
al., 2002). These results cast doubt on the idea that psychiatric diseases are only social constructs by
indicating that they may have a biological foundation.
Social constructionism may minimize the part that biology plays in the emergence and expression of
psychological diseases, even as it highlights the impact of socio-cultural variables on psychological
phenomena. Numerous mental health issues have been shown to have biological roots by research in
domains like neurobiology, pharmacology, and genetics (Sullivan et al., 2012). For instance, twin research
has demonstrated a large heredity component for diseases such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia
(Sullivan et al., 2003).
The development of neuroimaging technologies has produced strong evidence that certain psychiatric
problems are associated with anomalies in the structure and function of the brain. For example, functional
magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have shown that people with depression have dysregulation in
brain circuits related to mood regulation (Dravet’s et al., 2008). These results imply that intricate
connections between neurobiological processes and genetic predispositions have a role in psychiatric
illnesses.
There is evidence to imply that some psychological diseases are cross-culturally universal, even if socio-
cultural elements clearly influence how psychological discomfort is expressed and understood. For example,
studies have found that in many cultural contexts, illnesses like schizophrenia and major depressive disorder
have similar prevalence rates (Kessler et al., 2009). This shows that although cultural influences may
influence how symptoms appear, the fundamental characteristics of many psychological diseases are cross-
culturally distinct.
Even though sociocultural factors undoubtedly affect how psychological distress is expressed and
interpreted, there is evidence to suggest that some psychological disorders are universal across cultural
boundaries. For instance, research has shown that the incidence rates of conditions like major depressive
3
disorder and schizophrenia are comparable across a wide range of cultural contexts (Kessler et al., 2009).
This demonstrates that while cultural factors may affect how symptoms manifest, the core traits of many
psychological illnesses are universally different.
Certain psychiatric problems appear to be universal across cultural boundaries, despite the fact that
sociocultural influences clearly influence how psychological suffering is presented and interpreted. For
example, studies have demonstrated that the prevalence of disorders such as schizophrenia and major
depressive disorder are similar in a variety of cultural situations (Kessler et al., 2009). This illustrates that
although symptoms may vary depending on culture, many psychological disorders share common
characteristics.
In conclusion, there are many facets and complexities to the discussion of social constructionism in relation
to psychological diseases. Although social constructionism provides insightful information on the socio-
cultural aspects of mental health, biological variables must also be acknowledged in order to fully
comprehend psychological phenomena. The manifestation, diagnosis, and course of therapy of psychiatric
diseases are influenced by the interaction between biological processes and the sociocultural setting.
Social constructionism emphasizes the historical and cultural contingent of mental diagnoses, highlighting
their dynamic nature. It emphasizes how crucial it is to take into account how social factors—like power
dynamics, stigma, and cultural norms—shape experiences related to mental health. In addition, social
constructionism promotes critical analysis of diagnostic procedures as well as the larger socio-political
setting of mental health services.
But focusing only on social constructionism runs the risk of ignoring the underlying causes of psychological
illnesses. Significant data supporting the involvement of biological elements in the genesis and management
of mental illness has been made possible by developments in neuroscience and genetics. In order to
comprehend mental health, the biopsychosocial model provides a more thorough framework that
incorporates biological, psychological, and social components.
Ultimately, a sophisticated understanding of mental health phenomena requires an integrative approach that
respects the biological basis of psychological diseases as well as their social production. Researchers and
clinicians can improve outcomes for people with psychiatric disorders by developing more comprehensive
and culturally sensitive methods of screening, diagnosis, and therapy by bridging various viewpoints.
4
REFERENCES
1. White, K. (2004). An introduction to the sociology of health and illness. Sage.
2. Kirmayer, L. J. (2001). Cultural variations in the clinical presentation of depression and anxiety:
Implications for diagnosis and treatment. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 62(Suppl 13), 22-28.
3. Pilgrim, D., & Rogers, A. (1999). A sociology of mental health and illness. Open University Press.
4. Insel, T. R., Cuthbert, B. N., Garvey, M. A., Heinssen, R. K., Pine, D. S., Quinn, K. J., ... & Wang, P.
S. (2010). Research domain criteria (RDoC): Toward a new classification framework for research on
mental disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 167(7), 748-751.
5. Castellanos, F. X., Lee, P. P., Sharp, W., Jeffries, N. O., Greenstein, D. K., Clasen, L. S., ... &
Rapoport, J. L. (2002). Developmental trajectories of brain volume abnormalities in children and
adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. JAMA, 288(14), 1740-1748.
6. Corrigan, P. W., & Watson, A. C. (2002). The paradox of self-stigma and mental illness. Clinical
Psychology: Science and Practice, 9(1), 35-53.
7. White, K. (2004). An introduction to the sociology of health and illness. Sage.
8. Kirmayer, L. J. (2001). Cultural variations in the clinical presentation of depression and anxiety:
Implications for diagnosis and treatment. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 62(Suppl 13), 22-28.
9. Pilgrim, D., & Rogers, A. (1999). A sociology of mental health and illness. Open University Press.
5
10. Insel, T. R., Cuthbert, B. N., Garvey, M. A., Heinssen, R. K., Pine, D. S., Quinn, K. J., ... & Wang, P.
S. (2010). Research domain criteria (RDoC): Toward a new classification framework for research on
mental disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 167(7), 748-751.
11. Castellanos, F. X., Lee, P. P., Sharp, W., Jeffries, N. O., Greenstein, D. K., Clasen, L. S., ... &
Rapoport, J. L. (2002). Developmental trajectories of brain volume abnormalities in children and
adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. JAMA, 288(14), 1740-1748.
12. Corrigan, P. W., & Watson, A. C. (2002). The paradox of self-stigma and mental illness. Clinical
Psychology: Science and Practice, 9(1), 35-53.
6
7
