Hacking’s article discusses the development of the DSM starting back in 1844 to produce a “statistical classification” of patients in mental asylums and later used to assess army recruits. He calls it a “statistical manual” because it is used to study “the prevalence of various types of illness.” The problem with the concept of generalizing or labelling conditions under the DSM according to Hacking is that “A diagnosis may also have other more subtle effects on how patients think of themselves, how they feel and how they behave. Especially since nowadays, when told their diagnosis, patients tend to look it up online. There they obtain a sort of stereotype of how they ought to be feeling and behaving.” We all have those moments where we feel sick and decide to leave our diagnosis upto “Dr. Google” and believe we have cancer or something, which is a scary feeling! So I completely agree with Hacking in that these “labels” specially in a time of technology and easily accessible information (some misleading and some not all true) could jeopardize a patient’s outlook on themselves. Hacking states that the DSM is intended for clinicians and he goes on to define clinician “one qualified or engaged in the clinical practice of medicine, psychiatry, or psychology, as distinguished from one specialising in laboratory or research techniques in the same fields” therefore the DSM is not meant for researchers but Hacking believes the two can co-exist. Hacking also personifies the DSM by calling it a “living, organic creature, kept alive by myriad worker bees.” I was surprised to read that the DSM profits about $5 million dollars a year. The DSM now has many more categories and subcategories as well as treatments such as lithium for manic depression. The issue with the DSM now is that “… the manuals are so difficult to read…the criteria take the form of menus.” and the term NOS which stands for “not otherwise specified” meaning “when one does not have a good case history”. According to Hacking the DSM is useful for purposes such as insurance and paying for treatment of such disorders but it does not appreciate “the nature of things”. He ends with the note that  “the recognised varieties of mental illness should neatly sort themselves into tidy blocks, in the way that plants and animals do.” I personally agree with Hacking that mental illnesses are too complex to categorize in versions after versions of a manual, these disorders fall under various umbrellas and categories but a manual like this could prove to be necessary for billing or insurance purposes.