Tracking the Objects of the Psychopathology

On Interdisciplinarity of Psychopathology on the Margins of
Historia polskiego szaleństwa

Avant, Vol. XI, No. 1, doi: 10.26913/avant.2020.01.05
published under license CC BY-NC-ND 3.0

Przemysław R. Nowakowski orcid-id
Institute of Philosophy and Sociology
Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland
pnowakowski @

Published 12 December 2019   Download full text

Abstract: This paper is a loose commentary on Marcinów’s book (2017). The commentary is focused on the objects of psychopathological investigations and the role of psychology / psychiatry tension in the process of singling out, tracking, and describing them. As a consequence, there are limitations of collaborative and integrative efforts between psychologists and psychiatrists where questions of psychopathology are concerned.

Keywords: Mira Marcinów; psychopathology; history of psychology; history of psychiatry; biography of psychological objects; interdisciplinarity


Ankeny, R. A., & Leonelli, S. (2016). Repertoires: A post-Kuhnian perspective on scientific change and collaborative research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 60, 18-28.
Armsworth, P. R., Gaston, K. J., Hanley, N. D., & Ruffell, R. J. (2009). Contrasting approaches to statistical regression in ecology and economics. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46(2), 265-268.
Berrios, G. (2008). Descriptive psychiatry and psychiatric nosology during the nineteenth century. In: History of Psychiatry and Medical Psychology, Springer. 353-379.
Berrios, G. E. (1984). Descriptive psychopathology: conceptual and historical aspects. Psychological medicine, 14(2), 303-313.
Berrios, G. E. (1988). Melancholia and depression during the 19th century: a conceptual history. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 153(3), 298-304.
Berrios, G. E. (1996). The history of mental symptoms: descriptive psychopathology since the nineteenth century. Cambridge University Press.
Bluhm, R. (2017). The need for new ontologies in psychiatry. Philosophical Explorations, 20(2), 146-159.
Blustein, B. E. (1981). ‘A Hollow Square of Psychological Science’: American Neurologists and Psychiatrists in Conflict. Scull, Madhouses, Maddoctors, and Madmen, 241(270), 218-240.
Boden, M. A. (1999). What is interdisciplinarity. Interdisciplinarity and the Organisation of Knowledge in Europe, Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 13-23.
Borsboom, D. (2017). A network theory of mental disorders. World psychiatry, 16(1), 5-13.
Borsboom, D., Kievit, R. A., Cervone, D., & Hood, S. B. (2009). The two disciplines of scientific psychology, or: The disunity of psychology as a working hypothesis. W Dynamic process methodology in the social and developmental sciences, Springer, 67-97.
Brock, A., Louw, J., & van Hoorn, W. (2006). Rediscovering the history of psychology: Essays inspired by the work of Kurt Danziger. Springer.
Brown, V. A., Harris, J. A., & Russell, J. Y. (2010). Tackling wicked problems through the transdisciplinary imagination. Earthscan.
Campaner, R. (2014). Explanatory Pluralism in Psychiatry: What Are We Pluralists About, and Why? In. New directions in the philosophy of science, In. M.C. Galavotti, D. Dieks,, W.J. Gonzalez, S. Hartmann, Th. Uebel, M. Weber, (Eds.) Springer, 87-103.
Clark, M. J. (1981). The rejection of psychological approaches to mental disorder in late nineteenth-century British psychiatry. In. Madhouses, Mad-Doctors and Madmen, Scull, A.T. (Ed.), Athlone Press: London, 271-312.
Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American psychologist, 12(11), 671.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological bulletin, 52(4), 281-302.
Danziger, K. (1993). Psychological objects, practice, and history. W Annals of theoretical psychology, Springer, 15-47.
Danziger, K. (1994). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. Cambridge University Press.
Danziger, K. (2003). Where history, theory, and philosophy meet: The biography of psychological objects.In. About psychology: Essays at the crossroads of history, theory, and philosophy, D. B. Hill, M. J. Kral (Eds.), SUNY Press, 19-33.
Danziger, K. (2013). Psychology and its history. Theory & Psychology, 23(6), 829-839.
Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243(4899), 1668-1674.
Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2016). Interdisciplinary success without integration. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 6(3), 343-360.
Haslam, N. (2013). Reliability, validity, and the mixed blessings of operationalism. In K. W. M. Fulford, M. Davies, G. Graham, J. Sadler, G. Stanghellini, & T. Thornton (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of philosophy and psychiatry Oxford: Oxford University Press., 987-1002.
Insel, T., Cuthbert, B., Garvey, M., Heinssen, R., Pine, D. S., Quinn, K., Stanislow, C., Wang, P. (2010). Research domain criteria (RDoC): toward a new classification framework for research on mental disorders. The American Journal of Psychiatric, 167(7), 748-751
Insel, T. R. (2014). The NIMH research domain criteria (RDoC) project: precision medicine for psychiatry. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171(4), 395-397.
Keeley, J. W. (2014). The background assumptions of measurement practices in psychological assessment and psychiatric diagnosis In. Alternative Perspectives on Psychiatric Validation: DSM, ICD, RDoC, and Beyond, P. Zachar, D. St. Stoyanov, M. Aragona, A. Jablensky , Oxford University Press, 94-111.
Kendell, R., & Jablensky, A. (2003). Distinguishing between the validity and utility of psychiatric diagnoses. American journal of psychiatry, 160(1), 4-12.
Klein, J. T. (2010). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity, 15, 15-30.
Koskinen, I., & Mäki, U. (2016). Extra-academic transdisciplinarity and scientific pluralism: what might they learn from one another? European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 6(3), 419-444.
Lefere, S., De Rouck, R., & De Vreese, L. (2017). What to expect from reliability and validity claims? A pragmatic conception of psychiatric nosology. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 23(5), 981-987.
Leonelli, S., & Ankeny, R. A. (2015). Repertoires: how to transform a project into a research community. BioScience, 65(7), 701-708.
Lindzey, G., Runyan, W. M., & Association, A. P. (2007). A History of psychology in autobiography Volume IX. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
MacLeod, M. (2018). What makes interdisciplinarity difficult? Some consequences of domain specificity in interdisciplinary practice. Synthese, 195(2), 697-720.
MacLeod, M., & Nagatsu, M. (2018). What does interdisciplinarity look like in practice: Mapping interdisciplinarity and its limits in the environmental sciences. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 67, 74-84.
MacLeod, M., & Nersessian, N. J. (2016). Interdisciplinary problem-solving: emerging modes in integrative systems biology. European journal for philosophy of science, 6(3), 401-418.
Marcinów, M. (2017). Historia polskiego szaleństwa. Słońce wśród czarnego nieba. Studium melancholii. (T. I). Gdańsk: Fundaca Terytoria Książki.
Mora, G. (1970). The history of psychiatry: Its relevance for the psychiatrist. American Journal of Psychiatry, 126(7), 957-967.
Peterson, D. (2016). The baby factory: Difficult research objects, disciplinary standards, and the production of statistical significance. Socius, 2, 2378023115625071.
Peterson, D. (2017). The depth of fields: Managing focus in the epistemic subcultures of mind and brain science. Social studies of science, 47(1), 53-74.
Sierra, M., & Berrios, G. E. (1997). Depersonalization: a conceptual history. History of Psychiatry, 8(30), 213-229.
Sullivan, J. (2014). Stabilizing Mental Disorders: Prospects and Problems. In. Classifying Psychopathology: Mental Kinds and Natural Kinds, . J. Sullivan & H. Kincaid (Eds.), Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: MIT Press, 257-281.
Sullivan, J. (2009). The multiplicity of experimental protocols: a challenge to reductionist and non-reductionist models of the unity of neuroscience. Synthese, 167(3), 511-539.
Sullivan, J. (2017). Coordinated pluralism as a means to facilitate integrative taxonomies of cognition. Philosophical explorations, 20(2), 129-145.
Tabb, K. (2019). Philosophy of psychiatry after diagnostic kinds. Synthese, 196 (6):2177-2195
van Bork, R., Epskamp, S., Rhemtulla, M., Borsboom, D., & van der Maas, H. L. (2017). What is the p-factor of psychopathology? Some risks of general factor modeling. Theory & Psychology, 27(6), 759-773.
Van Bouwel, J. (2014). Pluralists about pluralism? Different versions of explanatory pluralism in psychiatry. W New directions in the philosophy of science, Springer, 105-119.
Wagenknecht, S. (2016). A Social Epistemology of Research Groups. Springer.
Zachar, P. (2012). Progress and the calibration of scientific constructs: the role of comparative validity. In. Philosophical Issues in Psychiatry II: nosology. Kendler K, Parnas J (Eds.). Oxford University Press. Oxford, United Kingdom, 21-34.
Zachar, P., & Jablensky, A. (2014). Introduction: The concept of validation in psychiatry and psychology. In. Alternative Perspectives on Psychiatric Validation: DSM, ICD, RDoC, and Beyond, P. Zachar, D. St. Stoyanov, M. Aragona, A. Jablensky , Oxford University Press, 3-26.

Comments are closed.