Quote:
Originally Posted by waxnrope
I appreciate the discussion on communication. Mostly, I appreciate the recognition that there are multiple styles. And, the unfortunate reality that not one style is suitable for every person.
Where I think that we need to exercise caution is in the manner in which we throw out the term "passive aggressive." This is a psychiatric term relating to a personality disorder. It has ranking within the DSM (currently IV) scales. What this means, like the past use of calling one's neighbor schizophrenic without having fully understood the dimensions of the disorder, calling people passive aggressive without having the tools (or the credentials), the objective observations can just serve to belittle behavior which one disagrees. I think we should be careful here.
For anyone with interest, the following link provides the criteria for the DIAGNOSIS of this disorder. Just reading it does not give the right to sling it around at random. There are nuances ..
http://www.ptypes.com/passive-aggpd.html
Just my $.02 worth and not meant to attack anyone who has used it ... merely a suggestion to reflect about how common the complex and complicated (and, dangerous if misused) commonly accepted practices become. |
Hey, wax!
Just wanted to note that Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder was actually removed as a diagnosis from the DSM in the DSM IV version (published 1994, text version 2000). It was moved to Appendix B (for reference).
For me, using the term passive aggressive as it relates to communication styles is very different from someone have a Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder. One can communicate in a passive-aggressive way, but not meet the criteria for the old Passive - Aggressive Personality Disorder diagnosis.
So, when I say that someone is communicating in a passive-aggressive fashion, I am in no way saying that they have a personality disorder. I am merely speaking to their communication style.