/4 Ir e, of s- ,). L: of n· ty on i.l. 01/ ng Ill. la- of The health professions, psychiatric discourse, and the classification of mental illness Michael Wearing Abstract This paper argues that the categorisation of mental illness by psychi- atric discourse is empilically over-valued in the health professions and by society. Psychiatlic discourse demonstrates a reliance on esoteric and quasi-scientific understandings to legitimate the claims of psychia- try to know the mentally ill over and beyond other professional or lay knowledge. The paper is based on a qualitative research project on the use of psychiatric knowledge by health professionals in the Sydney metropolitan region. The findings suggest that, despite efforts to chal- lenge psychiatric dominance by other health professions, psychiatry and psychiatric discourse remain central to the diagnosis of illness and to the delivery of mental health sel'Vices. Introduction This paper assumes that psychiatric discourse has been dispersed among the knowledge base of other health professions. Thus, I am concerned with the impact of psychiatric knowledge as discourse on the health professions and the categorisation of mental illness in that dis- course. Psychiatric classification and discourse are examined in order to discover some of the processes and reasoning involved in constructing diagnostic categories of mental illness. The theoretical background to the analysis is concerned with the production, boundaries, and implementa- tion of professional knowledge in health settings and in the public arena. A focus on discourse as knowledge in professional 'communities' requires an analysis of the production and repr duction of knowledge in profes- sional cultures (Atkinson, 1983, p.235). This analytic work is available elsewhere (Freidson, 1970; Johnson, 1972; Wilding, 1982; Castel, Castel & Lovell, 1982; Ingleby 1985; Miller, 1986; Willis, 1989; Osborne, 1993). Or Michacl Wem;ng, the School of Social Work, The University of New South Wales, Sydney. Australian Journal of Communication, VoL 21 (2),1994 53