Repliek

Abstract

Response
In our response to the three reviews of our book we focus on five critical points that were made, namely: the presumed absence of a central question and overall explanatory framework; the argument that the work is not a synthesis; the problem of the interplay between the supply of and demand for mental health care; the relation between the perspective of mental health experts and our interpretation of this in terms of cultural pessimism as well as social design; and the objection that our elaboration of the process of psychologisation is unclear.

We would like to emphasise that we do indeed present a definition of a central problem in the introduction and that we discuss it extensively and systematically in our conclusion. We also explain what, in our view, a historical synthesis should aim for and that our approach is empirical-historical rather than theoreticalsociological. We believe that we maintain a considerable distance from the actor's perspective at that time and that the criticism of our description of psychologisation is based on a limited understanding of that term.

This response is part of the discussion forum 'Verward van geest en ander ongerief' (H. Oosterhuis, M. Gijswijt-Hofstra).