>

suppose somebody is depressed in that they lack the motivation to perform basic self care on themselves or if they are depressed in the sense that they want to kill themselves.
In some sense, everything is subjective.  You could say cancer is not a diseases, it is Gods will that your cells replication process goes amuck or that the common cold builds character and makes you stronger and thus it is a healthy part of human development.
but unless you take subjectivity that far and say all diseases are subject, it seems pretty clear that these forms of depression are bad.
By your logic, countries other than 'the west' could just as easily put out their own DSM equivalent with biases based on their culture and situation. Have they? >

Depends on how expensive their militaries are, no?
(The DSM started as a manual created by the U.S. military: shocker!) >

Is the only way you could make something like the DSM through the military? No, of course not. >

I’m sorry but I’m not going to explain how disincentivizing it is to produce a competing system of control when an effective one already exists. >

You keep arguing at right angles to your previous arguments. How does 'this is an effective system of control' argue against 'you can make DSM-equivalents through the civilian sector'? How does your first comment argue against the idea of people making their own DSM if cultural bias is the problem? >

what is an example of a "culture-bound" disease from the DSM, which is exemplifies that lack of objectivity that you are talking about? >

Koro comes to mind. But again, I argue that all mental “disorders” are culture-bound. The problem is that psychiatry as “we” generally know is hegemonic.