Paradigms of psychiatry: eclecticism and its discontents

Purpose of review To assess paradigms of psychiatry, assessing their strengths and limitations. Recent findings The biopsychosocial model, and eclecticism in general, serves as the primary paradigm of mainstream contemporary psychiatry. In the past few decades, the biopsychosocial model served as a cease-fire between the biological and psychoanalytic extremism that characterized much of the 19th and 26th century history of psychiatry. Despite being broad and fostering an 'anything goes' mentality, it fails to provide much guidance as a model. In recent years, the biological school has gained prominence and now is, under attack from many quarters. Critics tend toward,, dogmatism themselves, usually of postmodernist or libertarian varieties. Three alternate approaches include pragmatism, integrationism, and pluralism. Pluralism, as technically defined here based on the work of Karl Jaspers, rejects or accepts different methods but holds that some methods are better than others for specific circumstances or conditions. Summary The compromise paradigm of biopsychosocial eclecticism has failed to sufficiently guide contemporary psychiatry. The concurrent revival of the biological model has led to postmodernist counter-reactions which, though valid in many specifics, promise to replace one ideological dogma with another. New paradigms are needed.