You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
How a society understands madness shapes everything it does about it — who is confined and who is freed, who is pitied and who is punished, who is prayed over and who is medicated. The categories we now take for granted ("depression", "schizophrenia", "a mental illness") are recent inventions, and the confident modern claim that these are illnesses like any other is itself a historical position that had to defeat rival views to become dominant. This opening lesson of the compulsory Issues in Mental Health section traces that long argument. It follows the changing conception of mental disorder from the supernatural and demonological explanations of the ancient and medieval worlds, through the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century reform movements and the birth of "moral treatment", to the medical or biomedical model that governs psychiatry today. The aim is not antiquarianism. Understanding how today's definitions were arrived at is exactly what lets you evaluate them — and evaluation is where the marks live.
| This lesson covers | OCR H567 Component 03, Section A topic | AO focus |
|---|---|---|
| Supernatural and demonological views of mental disorder | Issues in mental health — historical context (Background) | AO1 knowledge; AO3 evaluation of historical models |
| The move to moral treatment and asylum reform | Historical context — changing views over time | AO1; AO2 relating history to present practice |
| The rise of the medical/biomedical model | Historical context — how mental disorder came to be seen as illness | AO1; AO3 strengths and limitations |
| Why the history of the concept shapes present-day definitions and treatment | Historical context — links to defining/categorising disorders | AO2 application; AO3 judgement |
The specification is referenced descriptively throughout; consult the official OCR H567 specification document for the exact published wording. This lesson develops AO1 (knowledge of how views of mental disorder have changed over time), AO2 (relating those historical shifts to contemporary diagnosis and treatment) and AO3 (evaluating the assumptions each model carried and the consequences that followed for people so labelled). It lays the groundwork for the two lessons that follow — the four definitions of abnormality, and Rosenhan's (1973) study — both of which are best read as responses to the history sketched here.
It is tempting to treat "the history of mental health" as decorative — a preamble before the real science. That would be a mistake, and OCR builds this into the compulsory section precisely because the history is load-bearing. Three ideas make the case.
Before setting out the case, it is worth stating what this lesson is not claiming. It is not claiming that mental suffering is imaginary, or that madness is a modern invention, or that every historical practitioner was a fool or a villain. People in every age have experienced terrifying hallucinations, crushing despair and paralysing fear, and every society has had to make sense of them somehow. The claim is subtler: that the frameworks societies have used to make sense of these experiences — the stories they tell about what is happening and why — have changed profoundly, and that those frameworks are not neutral descriptions but shape who gets helped, who gets punished, and what "help" even means. Studying the history is therefore studying the succession of frameworks, and learning to see the present one as a framework too, rather than as the simple truth that all the others were groping toward.
First, mental disorder is not a fixed natural kind that was simply "discovered" the way a new planet or element is discovered. What counts as disorder has shifted dramatically across time and place. Behaviour that one era read as demonic possession, another read as hysteria, and a third reads as a dissociative or psychotic episode. Homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder in the American diagnostic manual until 1973; "drapetomania" — the supposed disease that made enslaved people flee captivity — was proposed in 1851 and is now recognised as a grotesque instrument of oppression rather than a diagnosis. If categories can change this radically, then any current list of disorders is a snapshot of a social and scientific process, not a photograph of nature. This is the seed of the social construction critique you will meet fully when you study Szasz (2011).
Second, the way a society explains disorder dictates how it treats people. A supernatural model licenses exorcism, prayer, or execution; a medical model licenses hospitals, drugs and diagnosis; a moral model licenses kindness, routine and rehabilitation. The explanation is never merely academic — it has immediate consequences for whether a distressed person is burned, chained, counselled or prescribed a tablet. When you evaluate a model of mental illness, you are also evaluating a way of treating human beings.
Third, the present inherits the past. The medical model did not arrive on a blank page; it was built in reaction to the failures of what came before, and it carries forward assumptions — that disorder is located inside the individual, that it has biological causes, that experts diagnose it — that are themselves contestable. Seeing where those assumptions came from is what allows a top-band candidate to evaluate the medical model rather than simply describe it.
For most of recorded human history, disturbed behaviour was understood in supernatural terms. Distress, hallucination, mania and melancholy were read as the work of gods, spirits, demons or the moral failings of the sufferer. Explanation and treatment were religious or magical rather than medical.
The archaeological record hints at very old attempts to release malign spirits from the skull. Trephination (or trepanning) — the deliberate cutting or scraping of a hole in a living person's skull — is found in prehistoric remains across several continents. It is often interpreted, cautiously, as an attempt to let out an evil spirit thought to be causing headaches, convulsions or abnormal behaviour, although scholars debate how many cases were "psychiatric" rather than surgical responses to head injury. Whatever its exact purpose, it stands as a striking image of the supernatural frame: the problem is a foreign presence to be physically expelled.
In classical antiquity, a rival current appears. Hippocrates (c. 460–370 BCE) and later Galen proposed that mental as well as physical illness arose from an imbalance of four bodily humours — blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile. Melancholy, for instance, was attributed to an excess of black bile (the Greek melan chole literally means "black bile"). Humoral theory is scientifically wrong, but it is historically pivotal: it located the cause inside the body and framed treatment as restoring balance (through diet, rest, bleeding or purging) rather than appeasing a deity. It is, in embryo, a naturalistic and proto-medical view, and it shows that the supernatural model was never quite unchallenged.
In medieval Christian Europe the demonological reading grew powerful. Madness could be read as possession by the Devil, as divine punishment for sin, or as evidence of witchcraft. The consequences were severe. The witch-hunts of the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries condemned many people — disproportionately women, the poor and the socially marginal — whose "symptoms" a modern clinician might describe in terms of psychosis, epilepsy, learning disability or simple nonconformity. Treatment, if the word applies at all, ranged from exorcism and prayer to torture and execution. The key point for evaluation is that under a demonological model the disturbed person is not a patient but a culprit: the frame assigns blame rather than care.
Evaluating the supernatural model. Its enduring appeal is that it gives meaning to frightening, otherwise inexplicable experiences and integrates them into a shared worldview. Its catastrophic weakness is that, by attributing disorder to evil or sin, it licenses cruelty toward the sufferer and blocks any empirical investigation of causes. It is unfalsifiable — no observation could disprove "possession" — which is precisely why it fails the test of a scientific explanation you will meet in the psychology as a science debate.
By the late eighteenth century the harshness of confinement was drawing criticism, and a new humanitarian model emerged: moral treatment (from the French traitement moral, closer to "psychological" or "emotional" treatment than to morality in our sense). Its central claim was radical for its time: that people experiencing mental disorder are people, capable of responding to kindness, routine, occupation and a calm environment — and that recovery could be encouraged by decent conditions rather than chains.
Philippe Pinel (1745–1826), working at the Bicêtre and later the Salpêtrière hospitals in Paris, is the figure most associated with this shift. He is famous, in a story that has grown somewhat legendary, for ordering the removal of the chains from inmates and for insisting that they be observed, spoken with, and understood as individuals with histories. Pinel kept careful case notes, favoured conversation and structured daily activity over restraint, and argued that many patients could improve under humane management. Whatever the precise details of the chain-striking scene, Pinel represents a decisive turn: the disturbed person becomes an object of observation and care rather than of fear and punishment.
In England a parallel movement grew from a different root. After a Quaker woman died in poor circumstances in a York asylum, William Tuke founded The Retreat at York in 1796. Run on Quaker principles, it dispensed with mechanical restraint where possible, provided a domestic, farm-like setting, valued useful work and gentle routine, and treated residents as members of a quasi-family community. The Retreat became an influential model of what humane, non-coercive care could look like.
Moral treatment carried its own model of disorder: that the environment and the person's emotional life mattered, that behaviour could be reshaped by conditions and relationships. In that sense it prefigures the behaviourist, humanistic and social explanations you will meet later in this section far more than it does the biomedical one. Yet by the later nineteenth century it was overwhelmed. Asylums, built to be therapeutic communities of manageable size, swelled into vast overcrowded institutions housing thousands. As numbers rose and optimism about cure faded, custodial containment displaced individualised care, and the reforming spirit curdled into the warehousing that Rosenhan would later expose.
| Model | Cause of disorder assumed | Typical response | People seen as |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supernatural / demonological | Spirits, demons, sin, witchcraft | Exorcism, prayer, punishment, execution | Culprits / possessed |
| Humoral (classical) | Imbalance of bodily humours | Diet, rest, bleeding, purging | Patients with a bodily disorder |
| Moral treatment | Environment, emotion, disrupted routine | Kindness, occupation, calm surroundings | People capable of recovery |
| Medical / biomedical | Biology: genes, biochemistry, brain | Diagnosis, medication, hospitalisation | Patients with an illness |
The nineteenth and twentieth centuries saw the triumph of the medical (biomedical) model: the view that mental disorders are illnesses, analogous to physical diseases, with underlying biological causes that can in principle be diagnosed and treated medically. This is the model that dominates psychiatry today, and the whole of the next section of this course ("The medical model of mental illness") unpacks it in detail. Here we need only see how it won.
A crucial figure is Emil Kraepelin (1856–1926), often called the father of modern psychiatric classification. By studying the course and outcome of patients' conditions over time, Kraepelin proposed that mental disorders fall into distinct types with characteristic patterns — most influentially separating what he called dementia praecox (later renamed schizophrenia by Bleuler) from manic-depressive insanity (broadly, today's bipolar disorder). Kraepelin's project — sorting disorder into discrete, diagnosable categories with predictable courses — is the direct ancestor of the modern classification manuals (DSM and ICD) you will study in the next lesson. The medical model needs a taxonomy of diseases, and Kraepelin built the first credible one.
The disease analogy gained enormous credibility from a specific medical success: general paresis of the insane, a form of madness that afflicted a proportion of asylum patients, was shown to be a late-stage consequence of syphilis — a physical infection of the brain. Here was a "mental illness" with a demonstrable biological cause and, eventually, a physical treatment. It was powerful evidence that at least some psychiatric conditions were brain diseases, and it encouraged the hope that all might be. Across the twentieth century, the discovery that drugs could alter symptoms — antipsychotics from the 1950s dampening the symptoms of psychosis, later antidepressants lifting mood — seemed to confirm that disorders were biochemical malfunctions to be corrected pharmacologically.
The medical model brings a bundle of assumptions that are easy to overlook precisely because they now feel like common sense:
Evaluating the medical model. Its strengths are considerable. It is broadly humane compared with what preceded it — a person with an illness is not to blame — and it removes some stigma by framing distress as medical rather than moral. It is scientific and testable, generating research into genes, neurotransmitters and brain structure, and it has produced treatments that demonstrably reduce suffering for many people. Its limitations are equally real and drive the whole second half of this course. It can be reductionist, explaining complex human distress purely in biological terms while ignoring poverty, trauma, relationships and meaning. It can pathologise ordinary or socially inconvenient behaviour by treating deviation as disease (recall homosexuality and drapetomania). And, as Szasz argued, applying the concept of "illness" to problems of living may be a category error — a metaphor mistaken for a fact. Holding both the strengths and the limitations in view is exactly the balanced judgement AO3 rewards.
Before the pharmacological era, the confidence of the medical model expressed itself in a series of drastic physical interventions that are worth knowing both as history and as evaluation. In the 1930s and 1940s, insulin coma therapy (deliberately inducing hypoglycaemic comas in patients with schizophrenia) and lobotomy (surgically severing connections to the frontal lobes) were introduced with genuine therapeutic optimism and, in the case of the lobotomy, were even celebrated with a Nobel Prize. Both are now regarded as at best ineffective and at worst gravely harmful — the lobotomy in particular left many patients passive, blunted or damaged. Electroconvulsive therapy, introduced in the same period, survived (unlike the other two) because a refined version genuinely helps some severely depressed patients, and you study it as a current biological treatment later in this course. The cautionary lesson these treatments teach is central to evaluating the medical model: the belief that disorder is a bodily malfunction, combined with the authority of the physician and the powerlessness of the institutionalised patient, produced interventions that were confidently administered and later judged to be abuses. A model that locates the problem entirely inside the patient's body, and vests all authority in the expert, carries a standing risk of overreach — a risk Rosenhan and Szasz would press hard.
It is worth pausing on why the boundary of disorder has proven so unstable across all these eras, because the reason is itself an evaluation point. Physical medicine has, for most conditions, an anchor that psychiatry largely lacks: a bodily sign — a pathogen, a tumour, a broken bone — that can be pointed to independently of the patient's behaviour. Where such an anchor exists (the syphilis case), the diagnosis is stable and uncontroversial. But most psychiatric categories are defined by patterns of behaviour and experience that must be judged against a norm, and norms are made by societies that change. This is why the same behaviour migrates between "sin", "madness", "hysteria" and "disorder" as the surrounding culture shifts, and why a diagnosis can be added or removed (homosexuality) by a committee's vote rather than a laboratory's discovery. None of this shows that mental disorder is unreal or that psychiatry is worthless. It shows that psychiatric categories are a hybrid — part observation of genuine suffering, part social judgement about acceptable conduct — and that keeping both components in view is the mark of a sophisticated understanding. The history is, in effect, a long demonstration of that hybridity.
The point of the whole survey is that today's practice is sedimented history. Three inheritances are worth naming explicitly.
The diagnostic manuals that structure modern mental-health care descend directly from Kraepelin's classificatory project. When a clinician today opens the DSM or ICD to match a patient's symptoms to a category, they are enacting a nineteenth-century decision that disorder comes in discrete, sortable types — a decision that could have gone otherwise and that continuous, dimensional models of distress now challenge.
The stigma that still surrounds mental illness is a residue of the demonological and moral frames, in which the sufferer was culprit or moral failure. Much anti-stigma campaigning today explicitly deploys the medical model — "it's an illness, not a weakness" — as a corrective, which shows how the older frame still has to be actively fought and how the medical frame is used as the weapon.
The institutions we still argue about — hospitalisation, sectioning, involuntary treatment — are the direct descendants of the asylum. The mid-twentieth-century movement of deinstitutionalisation, which emptied the great asylums in favour of community care (enabled partly by new antipsychotic drugs), is intelligible only against the history of how those institutions arose and what they became. Debates about whether people are now under-served in the community rather than over-confined in institutions are debates about how to correct the failures history handed us.
The three-strand OCR format asks you to bring background knowledge to bear on a novel situation. Consider a realistic one. A local mental-health charity is designing a public-awareness campaign and is torn between two messages: (a) "Depression is a brain illness — get it treated like you'd treat diabetes", or (b) "Depression is an understandable response to hard lives — let's change the conditions that crush people". The history you have studied lets you analyse this as a live tension between the medical model and the moral/social tradition. Message (a) leans on the destigmatising power of the medical frame but risks reducing distress to biochemistry and implying that only pills can help. Message (b) honours the moral-treatment insight that environment and meaning matter but risks implying that sufferers should simply fix their circumstances, which can itself feel blaming. A sophisticated recommendation would not crown one message as correct; it would note that the very existence of the dilemma is a product of the historical layering of models, and might suggest a both/and campaign that frames depression as real and treatable and shaped by circumstances — the kind of integrative stance the later "biopsychosocial" view represents. This is exactly the applied, evaluative reasoning Component 03 rewards.
Specimen question modelled on the OCR H567 paper format
Describe how views of mental disorder have changed over time, and evaluate the claim that the medical model represents progress. [15]
This is an extended-essay item of the kind that appears in Component 03. A useful mark-scheme decomposition in our own words: roughly a third of the marks reward AO1 (accurate, organised knowledge of the succession of models — supernatural/demonological, moral treatment, medical), a third reward AO2 (using that knowledge to address the specific claim about progress, e.g. weighing what each transition gained and lost), and a third reward AO3 (a genuine, two-sided evaluation reaching a supported judgement). Weak answers narrate history without engaging the word "progress"; strong answers make the evaluation of "progress" the organising thread.
Mid-band response (7/15): Views of mental disorder have changed a lot. In the past people thought it was caused by demons or evil spirits, so they did things like trephination or exorcism, and in the witch-hunts people were even killed. Then Pinel and Tuke brought in moral treatment, which was kinder and treated patients as people who could get better. After that the medical model said mental disorders are illnesses with biological causes, like Kraepelin who classified them and the discovery that syphilis could cause madness. The medical model is progress because it is more humane than burning people and it removes blame by saying it is an illness. It also led to drugs that help people. So overall the medical model is better than what came before.
Examiner-style commentary: This earns solid AO1 marks — the sequence of models is accurate and the key figures (Pinel, Tuke, Kraepelin) and examples (trephination, witch-hunts, syphilis) are correctly deployed (M1 supernatural, M1 moral treatment, M1 medical model with support). It engages the claim about progress, which lifts it above pure narrative. To reach the next band it needs genuine two-sided AO3: it asserts the medical model is progress but never voices the counter-case (reductionism, pathologising ordinary behaviour, Szasz's category-error argument). The missing AO3 discriminator on this question type is a limitation of the medical model set against its strengths.
Stronger response (11/15): [Opening establishes the same historical sequence with more precise dating and the humoral tradition as an early naturalistic counter-current.] The claim that the medical model is progress is partly compelling. Compared with demonological views it is unquestionably more humane: framing disorder as illness removes the moral blame that licensed exorcism and execution, and it makes psychiatric distress a legitimate object of scientific study rather than superstition, which has produced treatments that reduce real suffering. However, "progress" is not the whole story. The medical model can be reductionist, explaining distress purely biologically while ignoring the poverty, trauma and relationships that moral treatment took seriously. It has a documented history of pathologising social deviance — homosexuality was a diagnosis until 1973 — which suggests the model can be an instrument of control as much as care.
Examiner-style commentary: This is a genuinely evaluative answer: it earns the AO3 marks the mid-band answer missed by voicing both the humanitarian gains and the reductionism/pathologising costs, with apt examples. It reaches a nuanced position rather than a flat verdict. To reach top-band it needs one further synoptic move — connecting the critique explicitly to a named position (Szasz's "myth of mental illness" as the sharpest statement that "illness" is a category error) and to the social construction point that diagnostic categories themselves shift over time. That connection would convert a strong evaluation into the fully synoptic judgement the top band rewards.
Top-band response (14/15): [Establishes the full sequence with confident dating and treats the humoral tradition as evidence that the naturalistic and supernatural frames always co-existed.] Whether the medical model is "progress" depends on the yardstick. Measured against the demonological frame it plainly is: it substitutes care for punishment, removes the sufferer's culpability, and opens disorder to empirical investigation, yielding treatments that demonstrably help many people. But "progress" implies a single upward line, and the history resists that. Moral treatment already grasped something the medical model can obscure — that environment, occupation and relationships shape recovery — so the medical turn was in one respect a narrowing as well as an advance. The model's recurring pathologising of social deviance (homosexuality until 1973; the pseudo-diagnosis of drapetomania) shows that classifying distress as illness can serve social control, and Szasz's argument that "mental illness" is a metaphor mistaken for a literal disease exposes the conceptual risk at its heart. That diagnostic categories themselves change over time supports the view that disorder is at least partly socially constructed rather than simply discovered. The honest judgement is therefore that the medical model is a profound humanitarian and scientific advance whose very success has entrenched assumptions — biological reductionism and the disease analogy — that later approaches in this course exist precisely to correct.
Examiner-style commentary: This answer earns across all three objectives. AO1 knowledge is secure and economically deployed; AO2 keeps the essay pinned to the word "progress" throughout rather than narrating; AO3 is sustained, two-sided and synoptic, integrating Szasz, the social-construction critique and the moral-treatment tradition into a supported, non-formulaic judgement. The single mark withheld reflects only that even a top answer could tie the argument more tightly to a specific diagnostic example (e.g. how the shifting status of a particular category illustrates construction). The decisive top-band move here is refusing the easy binary and using the history itself as the evidence for a qualified verdict.
This content is aligned with the OCR A-Level Psychology (H567) specification.