Psikiyatride sınıflama sorunu çok boyutlu tartışmalar içeren, bilim felsefesi ve ideolojiden bağımsız olarak düşünülemeyecek bir sorunsaldır, ilgi çekici ve anlamlı olarak sınıflama sorunsalını tartışanların hatırı sayılır bir bölümü, tartışmanın epistemolojik ve ideolojik boyutlarından habersiz görünmektedirler. Bu alanda yaşanan karmaşalı, kavgalı gelişim ve değişimin, psikiyatrinin "bilimselleşmesi" ve "tıbbileşmesi" süreci ile yakın bir ilişkisi vardır. Evrensel bilimsel gerçekler kavramının muğlaklaştığı postmodern dönemde yerellik, evrensellik ve küresellik çıkmazlarında "izleyerek" assimile olan bir psikiyatri anlayışı yerine üreten ve tartışan bir topluluğun oluşmasının gerekliliği kendini çok yoğun olarak hissettirmektedir'. Bu yazıda DSM ve ICD tartışmalarına kilitlenen Türkiye'deki tartışmalara sınıflama sorununu tarihsel boyutu içinde ele alarak geleceğe yönelik önerilerde bulunulmaktadır.

This long-standing issue of debate still poses a tackling problem for those whose intentions and motives are literally intact and good in the field of psychiatry. This clinical branch of medicine is in fact also a battle-ground for the certain areas of philosophy especially in epistemology and ontology. What makes a classification system a mature and a reliable one is the system being accepted and agreed upon widely. Otherwise it means that the so-called system has considerable fragile components. As to the two big systems of classification (DSM and ICD), we should bring certain considerations into focus in order to envisage the whole process of evolution and / or maturation of psychiatry as a clinical branch. Classification in psychiatry seems to be a matter of importance not only from the point of view of some vital clinical and social issues but also of survival of psychiatry and psychiatrists. Actual clinical practice all over the world is mainly shaped by those two aforementioned systems on the opposite banks of the ocean. The services provided by them are of value for the sake of scientific good. However there are hard times for physicians as they feel themselves not in accordance with the colleague they address to when, as an example, simple type schizophrenia is subject to discussion as a classification practice. (DSM excludes this diagnostic entity categorically) On the other hand Psychoanalysis is being treated as an outsider since the system (DSM) needs to become value-free and/or sterile from the humanitarian considerations. Nowadays none of any discussions can fall apart from either DSM and/or ICD.One of them once upon a time was a local classification system is now domineering the globe. (DSM) The other one has somewhat a gifted international and supra-national identity of which produces an institutional influence.(ICD) Both of them successfully and politely ignores the struggle for dominance in-between. Well, it is nothing to do with the rest of world ! A Chinees saying warns ; "when two elephants crash, it becomes the worry of the grass" Are we supposed to remain deep in sorrow and become silent spectators of the game or speak out with our own words ? Answer to this uneasy question requires certain attitudes regarding the historical continuity of the debate of classification. These are as follows ; common sense, self-righteous claims, interrogative approach, right of demanding , scientific reasoning and etc. Doing so doesnot necessarily means being isolated from the global affairs of medical world, on the contrary it means to ascertain a healthy attitude towards the invading force of the these systems. It also represents a preference between integration and assimilation. This monographical article aims all these issues to be discussed through an impetus as if given by a well-known character; the devil's advocate. I personally have a strong belief that there still exists and lives an advocate of any kind with every psychiatrist either inside or outside. It is an issue of importance of secondary kind whether this to be devil or not.