ABSTRACT.
The area of psychopathology -, that which contains the set of knowledge related to mental illness - is permeated by several controversies of theoretical, practical, ethical and methodological scope. The great diversity of explanatory models is one of the characteristics of psychopathology that contributes to the creation and maintenance of these existent controversies, while at the same time establishing challenges for the professional that is dedicated to this área of knowledge. In this article we defend the conception of the existence of absolutisms such as universalism, objectivism and foundationalism contribute to the difficulties of dialogue between professionals who are adept of the different explanatory models existing in psychopathology. Such difficulties undermine both scientific research and the treatment of patients themselves and, therefore, a better understanding of absolutisms is urgently needed in order to overcome them, which is the main objective of this article. As an alternative to absolutisms we defend both pluralism in all the areas referred above and dialogue in the sense proposed by Hans-Georg Gadamer. This favors the democratic existence of the diversity of explanatory models without incurring in dogmatisms that hinder or even impede interprofessional dialogue.
Keywords:
Psychopathology; absolutism; pluralism