It's not that inaccurate,
19th century science has had far more influence on modern culture than you might think, it's because of 19th century "nutritionist" Dr Kellogg gave us eating cereal for breakfast for instance. It's also when circumcision became popularised in the US.
They categorised homosexuality as such (as opposed to sexual excesses and lust) as a mental disorder, in a way that society and the Church previously never did, and we're still dealing with the repercussions of that. It's even an argument that conservatives drag up - "science classed it as a disorder," they go on, "and it was reclassified because of political lobbying". What is touted as "science" can have an enormous impact.
(
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 16:24,
Share,
Reply)
I do think modern science has had a huge impact. I'm not going to deny that.
And that classification was horrible*.
But that classification didn't create homophobia, nor would I argue did it contribute greatly to homophobia. That homophobia was already present and enshrined within society.
That's why I would argue it is an inaccurate and sweeping statement**
When we're taking about reprecussions (and I guess blame) it might be better to consider why such homophobia was already present.
*The next DSM is also going to have a horrible change in the classication of paraphilia's.
**Especially when you take into account, and this is my pet peeve, that the area of Psychology that deals with supposed abnormality, clinical cases and atypical behaviour is actually only a small fraction of the discipline.
(, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 16:49, Share, Reply)
I don't think it "created" it,
so much as steered it in the direction it took. I suppose I should have said "modern homophobia".
So what's up with the new DSM? :(
(
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 17:08,
Share,
Reply)
Yeah with the creation I was refering to your original statement which I think we'd sort of moved on from anyway!
In the current and soon to be old verison of the DSM things like fetishes were classified and diagnosed as a paraphilia if they caused discomfort and/or dysfunction. Usually to a fairly high level.
In the new verison simply having the urge could lead to the diagnosis of a paraphilia. So the simple urge or fantasy about a body part or object could under the proposed criteria changes lead to diagnosis of what is essentially considered a mental disorder. Bad times.
(, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 17:27, Share, Reply)
hmm, what's prompted that change, then?
(
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 17:32,
Share,
Reply)
Apparently not evidence.
There's a raft of papers and critiques out there slating the changes and the editors involved. Some of the data they seems to be working from for the changes is questionable.
There seems, in my view anyway, to be a general call for the removal of paraphilia's from the DSM. I had a fantastic article on it, I think it's at work and behind a paywall so it's not much use, but if I can find it I'll stick a link up. The authors make a much better case than I do, Clinical Psychology isn't my bag.
EDIT: Might be Wakefield (2011) for the current changes from DSM-IV-TR to DSM-V and Moser & Klienplatz (2005) for the changes to the DSM-IV-TR.
(, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 17:45, Share, Reply)
on googling it seems to be a bit political.
(
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Sun 26 Aug 2012, 18:12,
Share,
Reply)