> I'm not fussed what the DSM says, especially about anything touching on psychology. I have heard that it's decisions carry a lot of weight in insurance and pharma circles.
The DSM is literally the consensus of the American Psychiatric Association on what constitutes a mental disorder. It's not perfect, but I'm not sure exactly what makes you feel confident to brush off the scientific consensus so easily.
I also find this attitude about language a little bit funny. The way we speak is changing all the time. Would we be better off if we spoke the way we did 100 years ago, or a thousand years ago?
I'm not sure addiction has ever had the extremely narrow meaning you've applied to it, but surely the people using the term 50 years ago had a less accurate understanding of the actual pathology of addiction, so why should we defer to them? You might be able to point to a period in history where alcohol withdrawal was attributed to demonic possession.
I found this interesting, so I had a look into the etymology of the term addiction[0], and was interested to find this about the 16th century definition:
> addiction as a form of devotion at once laudable, difficult, extraordinary, and even heroic. This view has been concealed by the persistent link of addiction to pathology and modernity: current understandings of, and scholarship on, addiction connect it to globalization, medicalization, and capitalism. Surveying sixteenth-century invocations reveals instead that one might be addicted to study, friendship, love, or God.
The author states that addiction was once more synonymous with devotion - it was the act of giving over one's will and self-sovereignty to something or someone else, and letting another spirit breath into you and move you. It could refer to compulsion, but also to willing self-sacrifice. Arguably that definition is even more broad than the colloquial definition we use today, and the the main example this piece centers on - addiction to theater - is conceptually quite similar to a concept like addiction to television or addiction to social media in that it centers on a form of entertainment.
The DSM is literally the consensus of the American Psychiatric Association on what constitutes a mental disorder. It's not perfect, but I'm not sure exactly what makes you feel confident to brush off the scientific consensus so easily.
I also find this attitude about language a little bit funny. The way we speak is changing all the time. Would we be better off if we spoke the way we did 100 years ago, or a thousand years ago?
I'm not sure addiction has ever had the extremely narrow meaning you've applied to it, but surely the people using the term 50 years ago had a less accurate understanding of the actual pathology of addiction, so why should we defer to them? You might be able to point to a period in history where alcohol withdrawal was attributed to demonic possession.
I found this interesting, so I had a look into the etymology of the term addiction[0], and was interested to find this about the 16th century definition:
> addiction as a form of devotion at once laudable, difficult, extraordinary, and even heroic. This view has been concealed by the persistent link of addiction to pathology and modernity: current understandings of, and scholarship on, addiction connect it to globalization, medicalization, and capitalism. Surveying sixteenth-century invocations reveals instead that one might be addicted to study, friendship, love, or God.
The author states that addiction was once more synonymous with devotion - it was the act of giving over one's will and self-sovereignty to something or someone else, and letting another spirit breath into you and move you. It could refer to compulsion, but also to willing self-sacrifice. Arguably that definition is even more broad than the colloquial definition we use today, and the the main example this piece centers on - addiction to theater - is conceptually quite similar to a concept like addiction to television or addiction to social media in that it centers on a form of entertainment.
[0]: https://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/toc/15773_toc.html