Beyond medicalization: Self-injuring acts revisited

Abstract

For too long, medical/psychiatric and psychological studies, with focus on emotional sensitivity, personality traits, and correlation with psychopathology, have dominated research on self-injuring acts. The phenomenon thus has been defined as a predominantly medical issue. However, a large body of community prevalence studies show self-injuring acts to be a common phenomenon in society, and most of those who self-injure are unknown in psychiatric or other clinical settings. This article describes and analyzes the medicalization of self-injuring acts and argues a need to move research on self-injuring acts out of the medical paradigm. There is a need to explicitly explore the impact of social, cultural, structural, and gendered factors surrounding and influencing self-injuring acts. A non-medical approach, beyond the limits of the medical perspective, would feed research forward and create a more nuanced view on this widespread social phenomenon.

Keywords

demedicalization gender medicalization research context self-injuring acts

Introduction

During the last decades self-injuring acts, the intentional destruction of body tissue with or without suicidal intent, have been reported as a widespread phenomenon among adolescents and young adults. With few exceptions, scientific literature describes and explains self-injuring acts as an outcome of individual psychiatric or psychological characteristics. Research is concentrated on finding deviant intrapersonal patterns, gender differences, psychopathology, and emotional dissimilarities between those who self-injure and those who do not.

Self-injuring acts can sometimes be an expression of a psychiatric disorder and thus an issue for psychiatric care and treatment. However, epidemiological studies disclose that self-injuring acts occur among a large percentage of adolescents and young adults, which indicates that the psychopathological view is insufficient as explanation for the phenomenon. Therefore, other factors than those related to medical/psychiatric or psychological components need to be acknowledged in order to understand the rationale behind self-injuring acts.

The aim of this article is to describe and analyze how research on self-injuring acts has medicalized the phenomenon and to outline how a non-medical approach could push research forward and create a more nuanced view on this widespread phenomenon.

In order to do this, the article initially gives a brief overview of critical studies of research on medical/psychiatric and psychological studies on self-injuring acts, followed by a theoretical framework on medicalization and the production of knowledge. The third section describes and gives examples of how self-injuring acts have been interpreted as a medical issue, from early clinical studies up until now. The discussion outlines how a demedicalization process could push research forward and increase the understanding of self-injuring acts.

Terminology in research on self-injuring acts

A plethora of terminologies, definitions, and inclusion criteria are used in research on self-injuring acts. The two most common terms are Non-Suicidal Self-Injury (NSSI) (e.g. Klonsky, 2007; Nock et al., 2006; Swannell et al., 2014; Zetterqvist et al., 2013) and Deliberate Self-Harm (DSH) (e.g. Bjärehed and Lundh, 2008; Hawton et al., 2002; Madge et al., 2008; Tsai et al., 2011; Ystgaard et al., 2009). NSSI is defined as intentional self-inflicted damage to body tissue without suicidal intent, while DSH also includes other self-destructive acts such as jumping from a height or ingesting a recreational or illicit drug, as well as suicide attempts. DSH is mainly used in the United Kingdom and some other European countries, but this term, especially when used in the United States, can hold the same definition and inclusion criteria as NSSI. Other terms are self-mutilation (e.g. Favazza, 1998; Rissanen et al., 2011), parasuicide (e.g. Crowell et al., 2005), self-inflicted injury (SII) (Crowell et al., 2005), self-injurious behavior (SIB) (e.g. Kleiman et al., 2014), direct self-injurious behavior (D-SIB) (e.g. Brunner et al., 2014), and non-suicidal deliberate self-harm (e.g. Brown, 2009).

The common denominator in these different terms is that they describe self-injuring as an intentional act. In this article, the term self-injuring acts is used when addressing the phenomenon and the literature on the subject.

Critical voices on the individual focus in self-injury research

Critical accounts of literature on self-injuring acts question the reliance on psychiatry and psychology to understand individuals who self-injure and claim that the medical literature on self-injuring acts hampers the understanding of this multifaceted phenomenon (Chandler et al., 2011). Adler and Adler (2007) argue that the traditional depiction of self-injuring acts in the medical/psychiatric and psychological literature neglects the complex social processes behind self-injuring acts.

Societal expectations and norms play a part in all human acts, and self-injuring acts are not excluded (Hodgson, 2004), but researchers, as well as psychiatric care workers, often disregard the social context in which self-injuring acts occur (Ekman and Söderberg, 2009). Discussing the influence of societal and cultural processes on self-injuring acts, Ekman and Söderberg point to symbolic interactionism and systemic oriented approaches as a theoretical framework for understanding how contextual factors influence the onset and continuation of self-injuring acts.

Despite a prepondering focus on self-injuring acts among women, very few psychiatric studies ask what society’s role may be in encouraging, supporting, or even causing self-injuring acts among women. Neither do they reflect upon how cultural assumptions, particularly about femininity or the body, has directed the research and gendered self-injuring acts (Brickman, 2004). The onset of self-injuring acts is instead regarded as the result of an assumed pathology located within the individual woman, and environmental factors are de-emphasized. Thus, the experience of being a woman in the present culture is overlooked in most research on self-injuring acts in favor of a medical perspective (Shaw, 2002).

Kokaliari and Berzoff (2008) bring forth the thoughts of Foucault, who theorized that systems of knowledge, such as medicine and psychology, exercise power that determines what is normal and what is abnormal in each society. Based on this theory, they strongly question the medical discipline’s definition of self-injuring acts as an individual female pathology and argue that women’s self-injuring acts can be understood as a way of punishing oneself for not being able to live up to the expectations and demands of modern society.

The association of self-injuring acts with female pathology may be a hindrance to acknowledging self-injuring acts among men, as self-injuring acts do not fit into the traditional societal and cultural norm of masculinity as strong, rational, and invulnerable (Inckle, 2014; Taylor, 2003). A perspective on self-injuring acts that would mitigate the duality of the gendered conceptualization of the phenomenon is presented by Adler and Adler (2007), who describe self-injuring acts as a strategy challenging common social norms, and not as an expression of illness or disorder.

These critical voices all describe self-injuring acts as socially and culturally situated and state that the field of research for too long has been medically defined. The reviewed literature points to a need to broaden the lens in understanding self-injuring acts and argue that social, cultural, and gender perspectives are needed to fully address this widespread phenomenon.

Theoretical approach

In this section a brief theoretical outline is presented as a foundation for the discussion of the impact of medicalization processes in research on self-injuring acts, and how a demedicalization process could contribute to the understanding of self-injuring acts.

Medicalization, mental suffering, and context

Medicalization consists of defining a problem in medical terms, using medical language to describe a problem, adopting a medical framework to understand a problem, and using medical intervention to handle the problem (Conrad, 1992). The medicalization process is bidirectional in the sense that a phenomenon can be both medicalized and demedicalized (Conrad, 2007). Conrad emphasizes medicalization to be a value-free process, but when non-medical issues come under medical influence or dominance, and people’s reactions to everyday situations are described with a medical vocabulary, there is a risk that ordinary reactions to stressful events and life situations are referred to the medical profession and regarded as too difficult and too complicated to be handled by the individual’s social network. Another consequence could be that medicalization undermines people seeing themselves as subjects (Parens, 2013). A diagnostic vocabulary and a focus on diagnoses and medical aspects on human reactions risk to objectify the individual and explain away human suffering (Wilkinson, 2005). An example of this is how the psychiatric profession has reclassified normal human sorrow and sadness for example due to the loss of a loved one, into largely an abnormal experience by not taking into account the context in which the symptoms occur (Horwitz and Wakefield, 2007).

Emotional responses to stressful and painful life events are affected by a myriad of factors, and Smith (2011) highlights how the individual’s interpretation of mental pain is relative to a range of interpersonal and social factors. Mental suffering, Smith concludes, is too complicated to be captured in a diagnostic system of medical or psychiatric diseases, as the individual is situated in a social world and mutually affected by the micro- as well as the macro level of society. Describing how mental suffering came to be treated as a medical problem, and what barriers these psychiatric constructs have produced, Smith calls attention to the importance of a multidimensional analysis. These perspectives emphasize the necessity to address the relationship between mental suffering and the larger social context, as it is impossible to capture the essence of suffering if it is only considered as an intrapersonal problem.

In contrast to such perspectives, the present tendency in society is to move toward a medical understanding and interpretation of a range of human conditions (Conrad, 1992, 2005, 2007). An example of this is how attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been made a psychiatric diagnosis within a few decades. Conrad and Bergey (2014) describe this process as a striking example of how complex social forces, including pharmaceutical innovations and marketing, play a significant role in the medicalization process. According to Conrad, the search for biological factors, possible to manage with drugs, is turning the medicalization process into a process of biomedicalization. A biomedical perspective emphasizes presumed individual deficiencies and pathologies and aims at correcting or changing the individual. Such a perspective on human suffering obfuscates the impact of social, cultural, and gendered structures and expectations.

The female body, with its physiological and hormonal processes, as well as women’s traditional social roles, have made women more vulnerable than men to the medicalization process (Riessman, 1983), which indicates that the medicalization process is influenced by gender (Russell, 1995). Discussing how psychiatry historically has defined women’s emotions and reactions as signs of hysteria, personality disorders, and depression, Chesler (1972), Russell (1995), and Ussher (2011) point to how medicalization of women’s minds and bodies has been an ongoing process from the onset of psychiatric research, and how women who opposed or challenged social norms faced the risk of being diagnosed as mentally ill.

Production of scientific knowledge

To understand the medicalization of self-injuring acts, the context in which the scientific knowledge has been produced has to be examined. The production of knowledge is irrefutably intertwined with ideological aspects, theoretical foundations, academic disciplines, and cultural, societal, and political structures (Bacchi, 2009; Haraway, 1991; Harding, 1986; Mannheim, 1976). Science, Harding (1986) declares, whether natural or social, is produced in a context not only motivated by scientific incitements but also governed by political and economic interests.

Attention to a problem is also intertwined with power relations that allow particular problem representations to emerge and gain status. Presuppositions and assumptions behind a problem formulation include some aspects of the problem and exclude other aspects to reduce complexity. Consequently, science and its methods not only describe but also create and produce realities, and scientific investigations interfere with the world, and always make a difference, politically or otherwise (Law, 2004). It is therefore critically important to examine the problem representations to see where and how they have been produced and how they have been perpetuated, in order to detect other important aspects (Bacchi, 2009).

Science production must be understood as situated in the local context where it is created (Haraway, 1991). Within a particular context, a doctrine or a canon is often formed with respect to acceptable and correct research methods (Mannheim, 1976). When a scientific paradigm has been established, further research within the paradigm is undertaken within what Kuhn (1962) calls “normal science.” Knowledge created within the paradigm is continuously reproduced, while problem formulations that are not within the borders of the paradigm are rejected.

The theories, concepts, and vocabulary central to a specific field of research hamper the possibility to see beyond the borders of the researcher’s own scientific area (Longhofer and Floersch, 2012). A field of research can therefore be perceived as a self-referring, autopoiesic system (Luhmann, 2003 [1985]), where theories and concepts can be described as communicative elements that are based upon earlier elements. In such an autopoiesic system, stable ideas, structures, and processes are continually reinforced once they have been created. New empirical observations are both based upon and related to earlier observations. Within an autopoiesic system, ideas, structures, and processes may resist change, as the borders of the system can be rigid and difficult to surpass. The status of a system and its members influence the openness towards new inputs and experiences outside of its borders (Luhmann, 2003 [1985]).

The medical view on self-injuring acts

When following the research production on self-injuring acts from the early stages up until now, it becomes apparent that this phenomenon was framed in a medical field from the outset and since then has continued to be medicalized.

The early stages

In the early clinical research, the phenomenon was predominantly studied among women within psychiatric settings, and these women were ascribed certain mental and emotional characteristics. The typical self-injurer was described as a young, attractive, intelligent, and on the surface socially adapted woman who was periodically overwhelmed by inner emotional tensions (Grunebaum and Klerman, 1967). Graff and Mallin (1967) interpreted self-injuring acts among women at a psychiatric ward as an expression of psychopathology and argued that women who self-injure were either promiscuous or overly afraid of sex and unable to relate successfully to others.

Self-injuring acts were also associated with female bodily functions. Rosenthal et al. (1972) related wrist cutting to menstruation, as 60 percent of the women in their study reported that they cut themselves during this period. “Even more strikingly, almost half of the cutters had always had irregular menstrual periods and frequent amenorrhea” (Rosenthal et al., 1972: 1363). Wrist cutting, they concluded, could be understood as a means of dealing with genital trauma and conflict centering on menstruation. Pao (1969), in discussing the characteristics of psychiatric patients who only made superficial, delicate, and careful incisions, assumed that some of the women, though strikingly feminine looking, had lived through a prolonged time as tomboys. The few male “delicate cutters” were described as “pretty boys” and quite effeminate.

As self-injuring acts were associated with psychopathological issues, a discussion on the feasibility of making it a separate diagnosis was initiated. Based on a meta-analysis of 56 different case studies, Pattison and Kahan (1983) argued that self-injuring acts met the three essential features of disorders of impulse control in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) III: (1) failure to resist an impulse, (2) increasing tension before committing the act, and (3) experience of pleasure, gratification, or release at the time of committing the act. They argued that self-injuring acts should be considered for inclusion in the DSM IV, and that this diagnosis should be defined as characterized by severe, uncontrollable impulses, major self-mutilation, a low level of lethality, onset in late adolescence, and repetitive episodes over the years. This discussion on diagnostic classification still continues, as described later in this article.

Expansion of the field

By the end of the 1990s, the research field expanded from psychiatric settings to studies on prevalence in the community. Still, research remained within the realms of psychiatry and psychology, regarding self-injuring acts as an individual health problem within the community, using the traditional medical methodology of survey studies. One of the first studies investigating the magnitude of self-injuring acts among adolescents outside of clinical settings was published by Hawton et al. (2002). Since then, a large number of prevalence studies on non-clinical populations have been conducted in most Western countries (e.g. Baetens et al., 2011a; Bjärehed and Lundh, 2008; Brunner et al., 2007; Cerutti et al., 2011; Claes et al., 2014; Harriss and Hawton, 2011; Hawton et al., 2002; Klonsky, 2011; Laukkanen et al., 2009; Laye-Gindhu and Schonert-Reichel, 2005; Lundh et al., 2007; Mohl and Skandsen, 2011; Moran et al., 2012; Muehlenkamp et al., 2009; Nixon et al., 2008; Nock et al., 2006; O’Connor et al., 2009; Plener et al., 2009; Ystgaard et al., 2009; Zetterqvist et al., 2013). The prevalence of self-injuring acts has also been investigated in Asian countries (e.g. Hanania et al., 2014; Kharsati and Bhola, 2015; Matsumoto et al., 2008; Shin et al., 2009; Tsai et al., 2011; Wan et al., 2011; You et al., 2011).

As there is no consensus on what acts should be included in studies on self-injuring acts, the prevalence rates vary. In the Asian studies, the prevalence rates of self-injuring acts varied between 9.2 percent and 31.2 percent. In an overview on international prevalence of NSSI and DSH, Muehlenkamp et al. (2012) found rates ranging from approximately 5 percent to 37 percent in adolescent community samples.

In a comparative study on findings of regional studies on adolescent self-injury in 11 different European countries, Brunner et al. (2014) found that life-time prevalence of D-SIB ranged from 17.1 percent to 38 percent across the included countries. They also found that female gender was significantly associated with higher rates of self-injuring acts in most countries. A questionnaire study covering over 30,000 mainly 15- and 16-year-old Australian and European school pupils (Madge et al., 2008) found that DSH was twice as common among girls than among boys.

In a meta-analysis of gender differences of NSSI, Bresin and Schoenleber (2015) found that the rates of NSSI in clinical samples varied from 11.8 percent to 84 percent, while in community and college samples the rates varied from 14 percent to 24 percent. This meta-analysis found the literature to be inconsistent with respect to gender differences, as some studies reported significantly higher rates among women while others found no differences. Such differences might be due to different inclusion criteria in the studies but may also be related to differing self-injuring methods between men and women (e.g. Posick et al., 2013). As results are heterogeneous, arguments for developing common definitions and standardized methodologies and screening instruments in research on self-injuring acts have been raised by among others Borschmann et al. (2012) and Swannell et al. (2014).

Searching for medical and gendered explanations

Although the prevalence studies reveal self-injuring acts to be a common phenomenon in the community, only a small minority of those who self-injure are known in clinical settings (e.g. Baetens et al., 2011a; Fortune et al., 2008; Hawton et al., 2002, 2012; Michelmore and Hindley, 2012; Morey et al., 2008; Ystgaard et al., 2009). Still, the medical view on self-injuring acts is perpetuated in the substantial research that has been undertaken to explore an assumed intrapersonal basis for self-injuring acts (e.g. Baetens et al., 2011b; Bjärehed et al., 2012; Cerutti et al., 2011; Nock et al., 2006; Victor and Klonsky, 2013).

Prevalence studies on self-injuring acts are often designed to investigate gender differences. Such studies focus on if emotions are related to sex and gender stereotypes (e.g. Straiton et al., 2012), if character traits differ between men and women (e.g. Sornberger et al., 2012), whether temperament differs between men and women (e.g. Baetens et al., 2011b), and if such factors have a positive or negative effect on the risk for self-destructiveness (e.g. Kleiman et al., 2014). These studies generally conclude that women handle anxiety, depressed mood, despair, and other affective states diametrically different than men. Such studies have evoked reactions by some researchers who claim that the focus on girls and women have concealed the fact that boys and men also self-injure (e.g. Inckle, 2014; Taylor, 2003) but might do so for different reasons and motives and by using different self-injury methods than girls and women (e.g. Russell et al., 2010).

There is a robust consensus that self-injuring acts are used to handle mental suffering and to regulate negative and unwanted emotions (e.g. Bentley et al., 2015; Jenkins and Schmitz, 2012; Kleiman et al., 2014; Klonsky and Muehlenkamp, 2007; Nock et al., 2007; Victor and Klonsky, 2013; Voon et al., 2014), but some efforts have been undertaken to find biological factors, such as attenuated serotonin levels, differences in endogenous opioid functioning, and altered cortical neural patterns behind self-injuring acts (e.g. Crowell et al., 2005, 2008; Plener et al., 2012; Stanley et al., 2010).

Toward a psychiatric diagnosis

A large proportion of research on self-injuring acts has examined the correlation between self-injuring acts, gender, and psychopathology, for example borderline personality disorder (BPD) (e.g. Bjärehed and Lundh, 2008; Kleiman et al., 2014; Lyons-Ruth et al., 2013; Nock et al., 2006; Selby et al., 2012) or other emotional disorders (e.g. Bentley et al., 2015). Self-injuring acts is one of the nine criteria for BPD (DSM-IV-TR, 2000), and BPD is a diagnosis primarily given to women, with a gender preponderance of 70 percent to 77 percent (e.g. Bjorklund, 2006). As people who self-injure do not always fulfill the additional criteria required for a diagnosis of BPD, NSSI has been proposed as a separate diagnosis. In a large randomized community sample of 3060 adolescents (50.5% female), Zetterqvist et al. (2013) found that 83 percent of those who fulfilled the criteria for NSSI were girls.

In-Albon et al. (2013) and Wilkinson (2013) have argued that an NSSI diagnosis should facilitate the communication between clinicians and those who self-injure.

Examining the interaction between women and staff at a psychiatric ward, Lindgren et al. (2011) found the communication to be characterized by a contest on the preferential right of interpretation. People who self-injure often describe encounters with professionals as characterized by misunderstandings, as the medical and nursing professionals perceive their self-injuring acts as irrational and illogical (e.g. Harris, 2000; Lindgren et al., 2011; Taylor, 2003; Taylor et al., 2009). Studies based on interviews with health-care professionals indicate that they find it difficult to encounter and understand people who self-injure (e.g. McHale and Felton, 2010; Patterson et al., 2007; Sandy, 2013). This begs the question whether an NSSI diagnosis would facilitate or hamper the communication.

Discussion

Medicalization is neither positive nor negative (Conrad, 1992; Parens, 2013) but still has consequences for the approach to the phenomenon of self-injuring acts, for research on the phenomenon, and for the definition and the vocabulary used to describe it. The problem representations created by research also influence encounters between care workers and those who self-injure. This discussion deals with those consequences and ends in outlining how social science perspectives and concepts could contribute to a demedicalization process.

The medical prerogative—consequences for the research approach

The incapacity to investigate a phenomenon outside the limits of the researcher’s own scientific paradigm has been stated as a problem by among others Kuhn (1962), Mannheim (1976), Luhmann (2003 [1985]) and Longhofer and Floersch (2012), who argue that established and accepted theories, concepts and methods within a paradigm continue to both guide and limit further research. In the words of Bacchi (2009), assumptions and presuppositions behind a problem formulation include certain aspects and exclude others. The continued assumption of intrapersonal and psychopathologic factors as the basic foundation for self-injuring acts, and the absence of reflection on whether this assumption is compatible with the magnitude of self-injuring acts in the community, shows the characteristics of what Luhmann would call an autopoiesic system.

Research on self-injuring acts was originally limited to interviews with psychiatric patients, forming the early view of the typical self-injurer as a woman with psychiatric problems. The prerogative of the medical field to decide who is ill and who is healthy, what is normal and what is deviant makes it difficult to challenge the medical perspective with its high status and power. An example of this is that when psychological behavioral science entered the research field of self-injuring acts, the medical view was not challenged, but instead the intrapersonal and psychopathologic view was reinforced in the search for emotional deviation, different characteristics, and abnormal ways of functioning among those who self-injure compared to those who do not. The medical view has recently been further reinforced by attempts to find biological explanations for self-injuring acts. Such a movement toward a biomedicalization process further distances self-injuring acts from its social, cultural, and gendered context.

Science and scientific methods not only describe but also partly create the phenomenon under investigation, as emphasized by Bacchi (2009), as well as by Law (2004) and Haraway (1991). An example of this is the arguments for NSSI as a separate diagnosis, which fit well into the medical paradigm. The arguments are often based on results from self-report questionnaires on self-injuring acts and emotions. As the findings in the studies are subjected to interpretations, the theoretical approach of the researcher is decisive for the results and the outcome of the investigation, and it is the researcher who decides whether or not those self-reports indicate signs of psychopathology that could qualify for a diagnosis.

A medical vocabulary—consequences for understanding self-injuring acts

Searching for individual characteristics, using vocabulary as personality traits, emotional sensitivity, and psychopathology, to explain mental suffering is well established within the medical/psychiatric and psychological paradigm. The psychiatric habit of medicalizing women’s minds and bodies (Chesler, 1972; Graff and Mallin, 1967; Grunebaum and Klerman, 1967; Pao, 1969; Rosenthal et al., 1972; Russell, 1995; Ussher, 2011) has contributed to the readiness to classify self-injuring acts as an outcome of female biology and women’s fragile psychological structure, neglecting the context of such acts. The problem representations inherent in this vocabulary exclude the social context in which self-injuring acts occur and continues to define and articulate self-injuring acts as emanating from intrapersonal factors, although biological factors, emotional sensitivity, and psychopathology cannot sufficiently explain the high frequency of self-injuring acts in the community.

Encounters in medical settings—consequences for the individual

Horwitz and Wakefield’s (2007) description of how psychiatry has transformed normal sorrow into depressive disorders is applicable to the field of self-injuring acts. The ongoing proposals to make NSSI a separate diagnosis in the DSM runs the risk of directing the attention of psychiatric care workers toward searching for individual features that are in line with the proposed diagnostic criteria. To label someone’s emotional status, and to frame this status in a diagnostic concept, make other aspects of the individual invisible. Wilkinson (2005) and Parens (2013) argue that such a medical view in encounters objectifies the individuals and make them passive receivers of treatment decided on and delivered by psychiatric care workers. When a diagnostic vocabulary dominates the description of people’s suffering it is, according to Wilkinson (2005), impossible to attend properly to the traumatic ways in which mental suffering occurs in lived experiences.

Significant in the hitherto accomplished research on self-injuring acts is a focus on intrapersonal factors, which influences professional care workers in encounters with people who self-injure. Findings in research on medical professionals’ views on people who self-injure indicate that encounters often are characterized by confusion and misunderstandings. Sometimes, there is also a struggle on the interpretation of the causes and motives for the self-injuring acts. The ongoing focus on intrapersonal factors and the medical diagnostic culture thus hamper the possibilities to support those who self-injure.

A demedicalized perspective and vocabulary

Referring to a US national survey screening for mental illness which indicates that almost half of the US citizens should face diagnosable mental disorder during their life-time, Conrad (2007) asks where the line between a mild disorder and normal life difficulties should be drawn. The same question can be asked with respect to self-injuring acts—is it possible that, roughly speaking, a fifth or even more of the adolescent population suffer from intrapersonal sensitivity, a fragile personality structure, or a mental disorder? If not, what other elements than intrapersonal factors could generate the high figures of self-injuring acts? And how should such elements be conceptualized, articulated, and researched?

So far there have been very few attempts from other scientific fields to revisit and reconceptualize self-injuring acts, which possibly is a reflection of the power and status of the medical field. To push research on self-injuring acts forward, there is a need to investigate and explore the impact of social, cultural, structural, and gendered factors in modern society. As Smith (2011) puts it, there is a myriad of factors, on the micro- as well as on the macro level, influencing and surrounding the onset of mental pain and mental suffering. Such factors need to be addressed in research on self-injuring acts, and perspectives from social sciences and gender studies should complement the medical interpretation of self-injuring acts, in order to create a broader and more nuanced view on the phenomenon.

Conrad (2007) has described how processes of medicalization of social phenomena have expanded during the last decades. Noticing the frequency of self-injuring acts in the community, the view on self-injuring acts as a medical issue needs to be revisited to move the phenomenon out of the medical sphere. That is, research on self-injuring acts needs to move beyond the present medicalization, in a process of demedicalization, if we are to understand the rationale behind the widespread phenomenon of self-injuring acts.

To implement other perspectives on self-injuring acts in order to demedicalize the phenomenon, the vocabulary used in research on self-injuring acts must be supplemented with social science vocabulary and concepts that problematize gender. The above mentioned critical studies on psychiatric and psychological research on self-injuring acts offer some useful concepts and perspectives with a potential to alter the medical view, as they emphasize the importance of researching the context where self-injuring acts take place. For example, Chandler et al. (2011) puts forward the observation that the impact of social class and socioeconomic circumstances are rarely discussed in research on self-injuring acts. Hodgson (2004) offers a view on self-injuring acts as partly (on the micro level) a response to emotions evoked in interpersonal relations and partly (on the macro level) a strategy to handle the societal pressure to appear “normal.” Ekman and Söderberg (2009) discuss, on the macro level, the pressure modern society places on young people today, and on the micro level, how interaction with significant others may hamper or facilitate the well-being of the individual. They argue for a systemic approach, which encompasses a circular view instead of a linear view, as it is impossible to determine one specific factor as responsible for the onset of self-injuring acts. Kokaliari and Berzoff (2008) argue that an analysis of the concept of power is essential in gender research on self-injuring acts, to make visible social and cultural power structures which could have more impact on the onset of self-injuring acts than individual intrapersonal factors. Self-injuring acts can be interpreted as a voluntarily chosen strategy (Adler and Adler, 2007), which implies that concepts such as activity, intentionality, and meaning are important alternatives to the medically connoted concepts for describing self-injuring acts. Expanding and deepening the perspectives outlined above would push research forward by putting less weight on intrapersonal characteristics, psychopathology, and diagnostic criteria and put more weight on social, cultural, and gender factors and norms.

Concluding remarks

This article does not explicitly describe the steps needed for a demedicalization process of self-injuring acts but outlines some possible openings for future research. It argues for an interdisciplinary approach in research on self-injuring acts, as no paradigm should stand alone in the efforts to increase knowledge about this widespread social phenomenon. Advancement in research on self-injuring acts requires that the medical scientific field opens up its borders, and social scientific research on self-injuring acts needs to challenge the prerogative of the medical field.

In this article, the term self-injuring acts has been used to challenge the description of self-injury as rooted in intrapersonal factors, and instead approach self-injuring acts within its social, cultural, and gendered framework. The term acts denotes self-injury as an intentional and active strategy, and not as an expression of intrapersonal shortcomings or inherent psychopathology, and thus fits well into this article’s argument for a demedicalized view on self-injuring acts.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank the anonymous reviewers for valuable advice that has substantially improved the article, and professor Hildur Kalman and associate professor Lars Evertsson, dpt. of Social Work, Umeå University for guidance and support during the entire writing process.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biography

Inger Ekman is a social worker with a master degree in social science. She lectures in social work and carries out her doctoral studies at the Department of Social Work and The Graduate School of Gender Research, Umeå University, Sweden.

References

Adler

(2007) The demedicalization of self-injury: From psychopathology to sociological deviance. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 36: 537–570.

Bacchi

(2009) Analysing Policy: What’s the Problem Represented to Be? Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia: Pearson Australia.

Baetens

Claes

Muehlenkamp

. (2011a) Non-suicidal and suicidal self-injurious behavior among Flemish adolescents: A web-survey. Archives of Suicide Research 15: 56–67.

Baetens

Claes

Willem

. (2011b) The relationship between non-suicidal self-injury and temperament in male and female adolescents based on child- and parent-report. Personality and Individual Differences 50: 527–530.

Bentley

Cassiello-Robbins

Vittorio

. (2015) The association between nonsuicidal self-injury and the emotional disorders: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review 37: 72–88.

Bjärehed

Lundh

(2008) Deliberate self-harm in 14-year-old adolescents: How frequent is it, and how is it associated with psychopathology, relationship variables, and styles of emotional regulation? Cognitive Behavioural Therapy 37: 26–37.

Bjärehed

Wångby-Lundh

Lundh

L-G

(2012) Nonsuicidal self-injury in a community sample of adolescents: Subgroups, stability, and associations with psychological difficulties. Journal of Research on Adolescence 22: 678–693.

Bjorklund

(2006) No man’s land: Gender bias and social constructivism in the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 27: 3–23.

Borschmann

Hogg

Phillips

. (2012) Measuring self-harm in adults: A systematic review. European Psychiatry 27: 176–180.

10.

Bresin

Schoenleber

(2015) Gender differences in the prevalence of nonsuicidal self-injury: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review 38: 55–64.

11.

Brickman

(2004) “Delicate” cutters: Gendered self-mutilation and attractive flesh in medical discourse. Body & Society 10: 87–111.

12.

Brown

(2009) Personality and non-suicidal deliberate self-harm: Trait differences among a non-clinical population. Psychiatry Research 169: 28–32.

13.

Brunner

Kaess

Parzer

. (2014) Life-time prevalence and psychosocial correlates of adolescent direct self-injurious behavior: A comparative study of findings in 11 European countries. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 55: 337–348.

14.

Brunner

Parzer

Haffner

. (2007) Prevalence and psychological correlates of occasional and repetitive deliberate self-harm in adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 161: 641–649.

15.

Cerutti

Manca

Presaghi

. (2011) Prevalence and correlates of deliberate self-harm among a community sample of Italian adolescents. Journal of Adolescence 34: 337–347.

16.

Chandler

Myers

Platt

(2011) The construction of self-injury in the clinical literature: A sociological exploration. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 41: 98–109.

17.

Chesler

(1972) Women and Madness. New York: Doubleday.

18.

Claes

Luyckx

Bijttebier

(2014) Non-suicidal self-injury in adolescents: Prevalence and associations with identity formation above and beyond depression. Personality and Individual Differences 61–62: 101–104.

19.

Conrad

(1992) Medicalization and social control. Annual Review of Sociology 18: 209–232.

20.

Conrad

(2005) The shifting engines of medicalization. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 46: 3–14.

21.

Conrad

(2007) The Medicalization of Society. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

22.

Conrad

Bergey

(2014) The impending globalization of ADHD: Notes on the expansion and growth of a medicalized disorder. Social Science & Medicine 122: 31–43.

23.

Crowell

Beauchaine

McCauley

. (2005) Psychological, autonomic, and serotonergic correlates of parasuicide among adolescent girls. Development and Psychopathology 17: 1105–1127.

24.

Crowell

Beauchaine

McCauley

. (2008) Parent-child interactions, peripheral serotonin, and self-inflicted injury in adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 76: 15–21.

25.

DSM-IV-TR (2000) American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed. Text revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

26.

Ekman

Söderberg

(2009) Across the street—Not down the road—Staying alive through deliberate self-harm. In: Sher

Vilens

(eds) Internet and Suicide. New York: Nova Science Publisher, pp. 221–232.

27.

Favazza

(1998) The coming of age of self-mutilation. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease 186: 259–268.

28.

Fortune

Sinclair

Hawton

(2008) Adolescents’ views on preventing self-harm. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 43: 96–104.

29.

Graff

Mallin

(1967) The syndrome of the wrist cutter. American Journal of Psychiatry 124: 36–42.

30.

Grunebaum

Klerman

(1967) Wrist slashing. American Journal of Psychiatry 124: 527–528.

31.

Hanania

Heath

Emery

. (2014) Non-suicidal self-injury among adolescents in Amman, Jordan. Archives of Suicide Research 19: 260–274.

32.

Haraway

(1991) Simians, Cyborg and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. London: Free Association Books.

33.

Harding

(1986) The Science Question in Feminism. New York: Cornell University Press.

34.

Harris

(2000) Self-harm: Cutting the bad out of me. Qualitative Health Research 10: 164–173.

35.

Harriss

Hawton

(2011) Deliberate self-harm in rural and urban regions: A comparative study of prevalence and patient characteristics. Social Science & Medicine 73: 274–281.

36.

Hawton

Rodham

Evans

. (2002) Deliberate self harm in adolescents: Self report survey in schools in England. BMJ 325: 1207–1211.

37.

Hawton

Saunders

KEA

O’Connor

(2012) Self-harm and suicide in adolescents. The Lancet 379: 2373–2382.

38.

Hodgson

(2004) Cutting through the silence: A sociological construction of self-injury. Sociological Inquiry 74: 162–179.

39.

Horwitz

Wakefield

(2007) The Loss of Sadness. How Psychiatry Transformed Normal Sorrow into Depressive Disorder. New York: Oxford University Press.

40.

In-Albon

Ruf

Schmidt

(2013) Proposed diagnostic criteria for the DSM-5. Psychiatry Journal 2013: 12.

41.

Inckle

(2014) Strong and silent: Men, masculinity, and self-injury. Men and Masculinities 17: 3–21.

42.

Jenkins

Schmitz

(2012) The roles of affect dysregulation and positive affect in non-suicidal self-injury. Archives of Suicide Research 16: 212–225.

43.

Kharsati

Bhola

(2015) Patterns of non-suicidal self-injurious behaviours among college students in India. International Journal of Social Psychiatry 61: 39–49.

44.

Kleiman

Ammerman

Look

. (2014) The role of emotion reactivity and gender in the relationship between psychopathology and self-injurious behavior. Personality and Individual Differences 69: 150–155.

45.

Klonsky

(2007) Non-suicidal self-injury: An introduction. Journal of Clinical Psychology 63: 1039–1043.

46.

Klonsky

(2011) Non-suicidal self-injury in United States adults: Prevalence, sociodemographics, topography and functions. Psychological Medicine 41: 1981–1986.

47.

Klonsky

Muehlenkamp

(2007) Self-injury: A research review for the practitioner. Journal of Clinical Psychology 63: 1045–1056.

48.

Kokaliari

Berzoff

(2008) Nonsuicidal self-injury among nonclinical college women: Lessons from Foucault. Affilia 23: 259–269.

49.

Kuhn

(1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

50.

Laukkanen

Rissanen

Honkalampi

. (2009) The prevalence of self-cutting and other self-harm among 13- to 18-year-old Finnish adolescents. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 44: 23–28.

51.

Law

(2004) After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. Abingdon: Routledge.

52.

Laye-Gindhu

Schonert-Reichel

(2005) Non-suicidal self-harm among community adolescents: Understanding the “whats” and “whys” of self-harm. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 34: 447–457.

53.

Lindgren

B-M

Öster

Åström

. (2011) “They don’t understand. you cut yourself in order to live.” Interpretative repertoires jointly constructing interactions between adult women who self-harm and professional caregivers. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being 6: 1748–2631.

54.

Longhofer

Floersch

(2012) The coming crisis in social work: Some thoughts on social work and science. Research on Social Work Practice 22: 499–519.

55.

Luhmann

(2003 [1985]) Sociological Theory of Law and Law as a Social System (trans. Ziegert

). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

56.

Lundh

Karim

Quilisch

(2007) Deliberate self-harm in 15-year-old adolescents: A pilot study with a modified version of the deliberate self-harm inventory. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 48: 33–41.

57.

Lyons-Ruth

Bureau

J-F

Holmes

. (2013) Borderline symptoms and suicidality/self-injury in late adolescence: Prospectively observed relationship correlates in infancy and childhood. Psychiatry Research 206: 273–281.

58.

McHale

Felton

(2010) Self-harm: What’s the problem? A literature review of the factors affecting attitudes towards self-harm. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 17: 732–740.

59.

Madge

Hewitt

Hawton

. (2008) Deliberate self-harm within an international community sample of young people: Comparative findings from the Child & Adolescent Self-Harm in Europe (CASE) study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 49: 667–677.

60.

Mannheim

. (1976) Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

61.

Matsumoto

Imamura

Chiba

. (2008) Prevalences of lifetime histories of self-cutting and suicidal ideation in Japanese adolescents: Differences by age. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 62: 362–364.

62.

Michelmore

Hindley

(2012) Help-seeking for suicidal thoughts and self-harm in young people: A systematic review. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 42: 507–524.

63.

Mohl

Skandsen

(2011) The prevalence and distribution of self-harm among Danish high school students. Personality and Mental Health 6: 147–155.

64.

Moran

Coffey

Romaniuk

. (2012) The natural history of self-harm from adolescence to young adulthood: A population-based cohort study. The Lancet 379: 236–243.

65.

Morey

Corcoran

Arensmann

. (2008) The prevalence of self-reported deliberate self harm in Irish adolescents. BMC Public Health 8: 79.

66.

Muehlenkamp

Claes

Havertape

. (2012) International prevalence of adolescent non-suicidal self-injury and deliberate self-harm. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health 6: 10. Retrieved from http://www.capmh.com/content/6/1/10

67.

Muehlenkamp

Williams

Gutierrez

. (2009) Rates of non-suicidal self-injury in high school students across five years. Archives of Suicide Research 13: 317–329.

68.

Nixon

Coutier

Jansson

(2008) Nonsuicidal self-harm in youth: A population-based survey. Canadian Medical Association Journal 178: 306–312.

69.

Nock

Joiner

Gordon

. (2006) Non-suicidal self-injury among adolescents: Diagnostic correlates and relation to suicide attempts. Psychiatry Research 144: 65–72.

70.

Nock

Teper

Hollander

(2007) Psychological treatment of self-injury among adolescents. Journal of Clinical Psychology 63: 1081–1089.

71.

O’Connor

Rasmussen

Miles

. (2009) Self-harm in adolescents: Self-report survey in schools in Scotland. British Journal of Psychiatry 194: 68–72.

72.

Pao

(1969) The syndrome of delicate self-cutting. British Journal of Medical Psychology 42: 195–206.

73.

Parens

(2013) On good and bad forms of medicalization. Bioethics 27: 28–35.

74.

Patterson

Whittington

Bogg

(2007) Measuring nurse attitudes towards deliberate self-harm: The Self-Harm Antipathy Scale (SHAS). Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 14: 438–445.

75.

Pattison

Kahan

(1983) The deliberate self-harm syndrome. American Journal of Psychiatry 140:7: 867–872.

76.

Plener

Bubalo

Fladung

. (2012) Prone to excitement: Adolescent females with non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) show altered cortical pattern to emotional and NSS-related material. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging 203: 146–152.

77.

Plener

Libal

Keller

. (2009) An international comparison of adolescent non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) and suicide attempts: Germany and the USA. Psychological Medicine 39: 1549–1558.

78.

Posick

Farrell

Swatt

(2013) Do boys fight and girls cut? A general strain theory approach to gender and deviance. Deviant Behavior 34: 685–705.

79.

Riessman

(1983) Women and medicalization: A new perspective. Social Policy 14: 3–18.

80.

Rissanen

Kylma

Laukkanen

(2011) A systematic literature review: Self-mutilation among adolescents as a phenomenon and help for it—What kind of knowledge is lacking? Issues in Mental Health Nursing 32: 575–583.

81.

Rosenthal

Rinzler

Wallsh

. (1972) Wrist-cutting syndrome: The meaning of a gesture. American Journal of Psychiatry 128: 1363–1368.

82.

Russell

(1995) Women, Madness and Medicine. Cambridge: Polity Press.

83.

Russell

Moss

Miller

(2010) Appalling and appealing: A qualitative study of the character of men’s self-harm. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice 83: 91–109.

84.

Sandy

(2013) Motives for self-harm: Views of nurses in a secure unit. International Nursing Review 60: 358–365.

85.

Selby

Bender

Gordon

. (2012) Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) disorder: A preliminary study. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment 3: 167–175.

86.

Shaw

(2002) Shifting conversations on girls’ and women’s self-injury: An analysis of the clinical literature in historical context. Feminism & Psychology 12: 191–219.

87.

Shin

Chung

Lim

. (2009) Childhood predictors of deliberate self-harm behavior and suicide ideation in Korean adolescents: A prospective population-based follow-up study. Journal of Korean Medical Science 24: 215–222.

88.

Smith

(2011) A sociological alternative to the psychiatric conceptualization of mental suffering. Sociology Compass 5: 351–363.

89.

Sornberger

Heath

Toste

. (2012) Nonsuicidal self-injury and gender: Patterns of prevalence, methods, and locations among adolescents. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 42: 266–278.

90.

Stanley

Sher

Wilson

. (2010) Non-suicidal self-injurious behavior, endogenous opioids and monoamine neurotransmitters. Journal of Affective Disorders 124: 134–140.

91.

Straiton

Roen

Hjelmeland

(2012) Gender roles, suicidal ideation, and self-harming in young adults. Archives of Suicide Research 16: 29–43.

92.

Swannell

Martin

Page

. (2014) Prevalence of nonsuicidal self-injury in nonclinical samples: Systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 44: 273–303.

93.

Taylor

(2003) Exploring the perspectives of men who self-harm. Learning in Health and Social Care 2: 83–91.

94.

Taylor

Hawton

Fortune

. (2009) Attitudes towards clinical services among people who self-harm: Systematic review. The British Journal of Psychiatry 194: 104–110.

95.

Tsai

Chen

. (2011) Deliberate self-harm by Taiwanese adolescents. Acta Paediatrica 100: e223–e226.

96.

Ussher

(2011) The Madness of Women: Myth and Experience. London: Routledge.

97.

Victor

Klonsky

(2013) Daily emotion in non-suicidal self-injury. Journal of Clinical Psychology 70: 364–375.

98.

Voon

Hasking

Martin

(2014) Emotion regulation in first episode adolescent non-suicidal self-injury: What difference does a year make? Journal of Adolescence 37: 1077–1087.

99.

Wan

Hao

. (2011) Deliberate self-harm behaviors in Chinese adolescents and young adults. European Child Adolescent Psychiatry 20: 517–525.

100.

Wilkinson

(2005) Suffering: A Sociological Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.

101.

Wilkinson

(2013) Non-suicidal self-injury. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 22: 75–79.

102.

You

Leung

. (2011) The prevalence of nonsuicidal self-injury and different subgroups of self-injurers in Chinese adolescents. Archives of Suicide Research 15: 75–86.

103.

Ystgaard

Arensman

Hawton

. (2009) Deliberate self-harm in adolescents: Comparison between those who receive help following self-harm and those who do not. Journal of Adolescence 32: 875–891.

104.

Zetterqvist

Lundh

Dahlstrom

. (2013) Prevalence and function of non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) in a community sample of adolescents, using suggested DSM-5 criteria for a potential NSSI disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 41: 759–773.