I explicitly noted that Allen Frances was the chair of the DSM-IV, and in fact linked to the source of the quote, thus any reader should have been able to make the connection that Frances is a psychiatrist, in fact one of the most important voices in the field.
Secondly, the field of psychiatry does indeed informally adopt the so called “biopsychosocial model" of mental illness, though its adherence and emphasis on the “bio” over and above the “psychosocial” aspects is one that can be demonstrated by examining the history of the field since the 1980’s onward. My argument is only a strawman insofar as I'm attacking a view that the field officially rejects but which in practice sets the agenda and theoretical foundations for research and clinical practice. I'm not merely asserting these things, I'm linking to academic sources for every seemingly contentious claim I'm making so as to (obviously unsuccessfully) cover my bases against accusations of critiquing a view that no one actually holds. It's absolutely bizarre to me to continue to have to address accusations of strawmanning when anyone who could be bothered to can see these criticisms are widespread and commonly expressed by other mental health professionals.
In fact, the same case has been made ad nauseum by individuals working within the field of psychiatry itself, many of which can be found in this list of relevant articles I’ve compiled.
Further extensive evidence of the pervasiveness of the biomedical model of mental illness within the psychiatric profession has also been thoroughly documented in the following books:
- Cracked: The Unhappy Truth about Psychiatry
- Unhinged: The Trouble with Psychiatry, A Doctor's Revelations About a Profession in Crisis
- The Loss of Sadness: How Psychiatry Transformed Normal Sorrow into Depressive Disorder
- Saving Normal: An Insider’s Revolt against Out-of-Control Psychiatric Diagnosis, DSM-5, Big Pharma, and the Medicalization of Ordinary Life
- The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It.
- The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmasking of Psychiatry.
- The Globalization of The American Psyche
- Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America
- Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill
- Shrinks: The Untold Story of Psychiatry
- Psychiatry and the Business of Madness
- Psychiatry Disrupted
- Prescriptions for the Mind: A Critical View of Contemporary Psychiatry
- Madness Cracked
- Psychiatry Reconsidered
- The Use and Misuse of Psychiatric Drugs: An Evidence-Based Critique
- Decolonizing Global Mental Health: The Psychiatrization of the Majority World
- Talking Back to Psychiatry
- Overdiagnosis in Psychiatry
- Making the DSM-5: Concepts and Controversies
- Diagnosis and the DSM: A Critical Review
I could go on, but I have a feeling you're not interested in reading any of them.
If there is a “strawman” here, you must also then believe that the British Psychological Society are all mistaken by having expressed the following sentiments regarding the publication of the DSM-V:
“The Society is concerned that clients and the general public are negatively affected by the continued and continuous medicalisation of their natural and normal responses to their experiences; responses which undoubtedly have distressing consequences which demand helping responses, but which do not reflect illnesses so much as normal individual variation. (p.1)”
“We believe that classifying these problems as ‘illnesses’ misses the relational context of problems and the undeniable social causation of many such problems. For psychologists, our well-being and mental health stem from our frameworks of understanding of the world, frameworks which are themselves the product of the experiences and learning through our lives. (p.4)”
Basically, mental health professionals from all over the spectrum are concerned about the historical trend of psychiatry to medicalize and reduce mental illness to medical problems, but you’re here to reassure us that no, we’re all simply mistaken, it’s all a misunderstanding.
No, there is no strawman here.