A case for de-diagnosis of harms in the social and behavioral sciences

Behavioral and social scientists are skilled at diagnosing harms in our collectives – we investigate and label discrimination, exclusion, and marginalization. But how skilled are we at knowing when to stop? Identifying more harms is not necessarily better, so we maintain that the well-being of individuals and collectives requires diagnosing harm when appropriate, but also occasionally revisiting the value of those diagnoses and, when necessary, reversing those that no longer fit the data or begin to cause harm themselves. We argue that there is room for self-reflection and ask whether some persistent social diagnoses may overlook evidence of progress. To explore this possibility, we draw generously on medicine, where scholars and practitioners have long recognized that diagnostic labels can outlive their purpose. We use gender discrimination as an illustrative case to examine how well-intentioned diagnoses can drift from empirical reality and become counterproductive in some contexts. Rather than calling for uniform declassification of harm labels, we argue for diagnostic stewardship - an ongoing, empirical investigation of when diagnoses continue to prove useful and whether they begin to hinder.