From distress to disease: a critique of the medicalisation of possession in DSM-5.

The paper critiques the DSM-5's classification of possession as a form of dissociative identity disorder, arguing that this pathologizes a condition understood as non-pathological in other contexts, such as at a temple in Kerala, South India. Based on ethnographic fieldwork, it contends that medicalizing possession converts a form of distress into a disease, reducing the temple to a culturally acceptable site for mental illness and denying alternative conceptualizations. The paper examines the DSM's singular notion of self, the distinction between pathological and non-pathological possession, and the equation of the condition with its manifestation, then briefly presents alternative views from those who heal possession at the Chottanikkara temple.

Study at a glance

Abstract

This paper critiques the category of possession-form dissociative identity disorder as defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5 (DSM-5) published in 2013 by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). The DSM as an index of psychiatry pathologises possession by categorising it as a form of dissociative identity disorder. Drawing upon ethnographic fieldwork, this paper argues that such a pathologisation medicalises possession, which is understood as a non-pathological condition in other contexts such as by those individuals who manifest possession at a temple in Kerala, South India. Through medicalising and further by creating distinctions between acceptable and pathological possession, the DSM converts a form of distress into a disease. This has both conceptual and pragmatic implications. The temple therefore becomes reduced to a culturally acceptable site for the manifestation of a mental illness in a form that is culturally available and possession is explained solely through a biomedical framework, denying alternative conceptualisations and theories which inform possession. By focussing on the DSM-5 classification of possession and the limitations of such a classification, this paper seeks to posit an alternative conceptualisation of possession by engaging with three primary areas which are significant in the DSM categorisation of possession: the DSM's conceptualisation of self in the singular, the distinction between pathological and non-pathological forms of possession, and the limitations of the DSM's equation of the condition of possession with the manifestation of possession. Finally, the paper briefly highlights alternative conceptualisations of possession, which emerged from the perspective of those seeking to heal possession at the Chottanikkara temple.