Rethinking the label: who benefits from the PMS construct?
After over 60 years of research on the premenstrual syndrome (PMS), work in this area continues to be characterized by a pervasive lack of consensus about the definition, aetiology, and treatment, nor is there agreement regarding the utility of this construct. The persistence of PMS as a medical category despite the inconclusiveness of the research, suggests that PMS is not simply a biomedical entity which eludes explanation. It is also a rather complex, ideologically and culturally constructed category, which is predicated on a number of unarticulated, but well-entrenched beliefs about the nature of science, biology, health, and femaleness. In this review of the feminist theoretical literature on PMS, the historical, cultural, economic, and political forces that have led to the popularization and medicalization of PMS are explored in light of these assumptions, with a particular emphasis on those that pertain to female biology and psychology. It is argued that research on the premenstruum requires the development of a cohesive theoretical framework that would permit a new lexicon and new questions to explore more fully this aspect of women's menstrual health.
Gurevich
M
M
Graduate Programme in Psychology, York University, North York, Ontario, Canada.
D003469:Culture; D004644:Emotions; D005260:Female; D005783:Gender Identity; D049672:History, 19th Century; D049673:History, 20th Century; D006801:Humans; D008389:Marketing of Health Services; D008402:Mass Media; D010686:Philosophy, Medical; D011293:Premenstrual Syndrome / Q000191:economics / Q000209:etiology / Q000266:history / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000523:psychology; D012106:Research