Phenomenology or constructivism in psychopathology
G. Dzhupanov

TL;DR
The paper compares phenomenological and constructivist approaches in psychopathology, arguing that phenomenology provides a more comprehensive framework.
Contribution
The paper contributes a comparative analysis of phenomenological and constructivist views in psychopathology, advocating for the former's broader applicability.
Findings
Phenomenology emphasizes the structure of subjective experience and pre-reflexive self-awareness in psychopathology.
Constructivism views disorders as shaped by social norms and societal influences.
Phenomenology is suggested as a more satisfying framework for understanding severe mental illness.
Abstract
Phenomenology is historically fundamental for psychopathology. In recent decades constructivist approaches occur as an alternative. Some consider them quite compatible, others take the reverse stance, arguing for advances of one or the other. This has parallel in discussions and contradictions in philosophy of mind. As Dennett points, there is no science free of philosophy, so it is recommendable to make clear and bear in mind on what kind of philosophy is based contemporary psychopathology. Brief review and comparison between phenomenological and constructivist approaches. There is no doubt, that culture influences self and experience. Culture and social environment shape abnormal experiences as well. In an extreme variant a constructivist statement would sound as “Someone suffers from a disorder because a violation of social norms.” The self is considered as socially constructed…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMental Health and Psychiatry
