644 APPENDICES “the distinguishing diagnoses are artificial constructs that do not refer to real underlying diseases” (Van Os, 2017, p. 143). On p.144, his conclusion is stated as follows: “DSM diagnoses are practical labels, not diseases that exist in nature.” Another objection to categorizing people based on the DSM, as Scheepers (2021) argues, is that a category suggests that we are dealing with homogeneous groups, while there are actually many differences within each diagnostic group. This is already evident in the way a diagnosis is established. In many cases, the description of the disorder consists of a set of criteria. For example, a client must meet 5 out of 9 criteria to receive a diagnosis (e.g., borderline personality disorder or narcissistic personality disorder). Thus, two people can receive the same diagnosis, while their behaviour only matches on one criterion. The argument that context is fundamentally connected to the perspective on behaviour is made by Bosman (2017). Disorders arise and exist because of the interaction between the individual and the environment. Deviation is not necessarily a disorder. What may cause a problem in one situation or context can work well in another situation. In other words, the extent to which a “deviation” is an advantage or disadvantage strongly depends on the context in which a person lives and works. If a classification system like the DSM is dependent on time, place, and person, does this mean that the DSM is flawed? We do not need to answer this question here because it is not relevant to our understanding of disorders. For us, what matters is whether a classification system like the DSM is useful for the process of providing help. The main question we ask is: Does a diagnosis based on the classification system indicate what treatment options are available for the problem? The Dutch translation of the DSM-5 is very clear about this. The DSM is a classification system that defines a disorder based on shared characteristics. It does not provide causes for the described disorders, nor does it suggest treatments. For this reason, we have turned to a diagnostic approach that does give us tools to shape the process of providing help. We have found these tools in the method Movement-as-anchor. Related methods During the writing of this dissertation, we were regularly made aware of other treatment approaches in which the relational aspect is important. Because ‘relationship’ and ‘relational’ can have different meanings from different perspectives, we decided to compare several common methods with each other and with Movement-as-anchor. These include Contact-Oriented Play and Learning (COPL), Family Group Conference (FGC), Emerging Body Language (EBL), Floor-time/Floorplay, Heijkoop Method, MultiSystem Therapy (MST), Presence Approach, Theraplay, and Video Home Training (VHT). It appeared that there are indeed similarities between Movement-as-anchor age and other existing treatment methods on relevant criteria, with EBL showing the closest
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw