Fellow Doctors of Philosophy, Psychology, or Education: It seems to me that a good case could be made for the fact that too much time and thought has already been wasted on this subject; but the proverbial anthropologist from Mars might wonder about the seductive staying power of the nagging frustration of psychologists over whether or not they are perceived as "real doctors". Anyone with a passing acquaintance with anthropology or semiotics would concede that to name a thing, and have that name endure in the public mind, signifies social power, and moreover, that naming is the most primal assertion of our uniquely human capacity to demarcate, understand and control our world (and it's clearly a hygienic improvement over micturating on tree stumps).

Here in the USA, in the course of the last century-and-a-half, the appellation "doctor", once a designation of high scholarship, has come to popularly denote membership in the medical professions (plural intended). I'm pretty sure that if we psychologists (not to mention occupational therapists, physical therapists, and medical technologists) ever get our pay scales up to medical doctor levels, we'll have no problem getting the general public to call us "doctor" all the time, provided also that we make more explicit our connection to medicine. While "physician" has come to mean, generically, "healer", its etymology is derived from the Greek word "physikos", meaning "of nature" (hence, the evolution of the archaic noun "physic" to denote the art or practice of healing disease). So, if we're going to start referring to some psychologists as physicians, they had best be those who are in the business of practicing "medicine" which is defined as "the science and art dealing with the maintenance of health, and the prevention, alleviation or cure of disease" (OED).

The DILATION, if not DILUTION of the title "doctor" has considerable cultural momentum behind it, but, like the title "artist", it is a fuzzy set which is governed by some implicit membership rules: To be considered a doctor in the popular mind, one needs to be involved in practicing some form of medicine: veterinary medicine, osteopathic medicine, homeopathic medicine, chiropractic medicine, optometric medicine. Why not PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE? The term "psychiatrist" (which derives from the Greek "iatros" meaning "physician" and "psych" the root for mental processes) is too restrictive: It suggests that the physician is mainly involved with mental phenomena (this used to be called "psychopathic medicine"), and thus promotes an anachronistic mind-body dualism. Also, psychiatry, the awkward stepchild of neurology and internal medicine, developed its identity in asylums and free-standing psychiatric institutions, environments which are steadily shrinking in size and influence. "Clinical psychologist"? Too generic perhaps, and also anachronistically linked to clinics and psychiatric hospitals. "Health psychologist" or "doctor of psychology"? To my ear, they're not mellifluous, thus moribund from a marketing point of view. Final suggestion: "doctor of behavioral medicine" (shorthand term - "medical psychologist"). Try it! Impress your friends. As for me, I'll wait until my reimbursement rates approach those of my psychiatrist pals before I use the new designation, lest I mislead my family and tradesmen about how high a life they can expect me to provide for them.

An afterthought. When acting as a psychodiagnostician, I refer to myself as a PSYCHOPATHOLOGIST. It helps to remind me of the distinction between my tools (which include tests) and my analytic role (as a consultant in psychopathology). Of course, unlike the pathologist, our role usually extends beyond the identification of the pathological process, to making treatment recommendations (as Dr. Constance Fisher wrote "The assessor's task is to clarify who the client is in relation to the referring person's forthcoming decisions. Hence, assessment is of circumstances and options, as well as of persons.").

Return to Top