Borderline Personality Disorder Did Not Make the Modern World
There is an intriguing idea buried inside the argument that women with borderline personality disorder have helped shape Western culture and history, made by Ed Dutton. Personality matters. Temperament matters. Mental illness matters. Individuals with unusually intense personalities can exert disproportionate influence upon families, workplaces, political movements and cultural institutions. History is made by human beings rather than bloodless abstractions, so historians should certainly be interested in psychology.
But from that reasonable starting point it is possible to travel much too far. The attempt to explain major historical and cultural developments through women with borderline personality disorder risks doing exactly that. It takes a complicated psychiatric condition, whose causes, prevalence and boundaries remain subjects of substantial scientific investigation, and converts it into something approaching a theory of civilisation. That is a fascinating story. It is much harder to establish as serious history.
Borderline personality disorder, or BPD, is real and can be devastating. Its characteristic features include instability in relationships and self-image, emotional dysregulation, impulsivity, intense reactions to perceived abandonment and, in some patients, self-harming or suicidal behaviour. None of that should be trivialised. Nor should the effects upon spouses, children, friends and colleagues be minimised. Severe personality pathology can send shock waves through an entire family.
The first difficulty for any specifically female theory, however, appears immediately. BPD has traditionally been thought of as predominantly a disorder of women because women have been heavily overrepresented among patients diagnosed in clinical settings. But population research has complicated that picture considerably. A recent review notes that although clinical samples have traditionally been around three-quarters female, epidemiological studies produce conflicting results. One large American study cited in that review found no significant sex difference, while studies in different countries have sometimes found higher rates in women and sometimes higher rates in men.
A 2022 scoping review examining 118 papers reached a similarly cautious conclusion. BPD continues to be perceived as female-predominant, but the literature on sex differences is fragmented. Men with BPD appear more likely in some studies to display externalising manifestations such as aggression and substance abuse, whereas women more often show internalising manifestations such as affective instability and certain mood or eating disorders. That raises the possibility that part of the apparent sex difference concerns presentation, diagnosis and contact with psychiatric services rather than a simple biological fact that BPD is overwhelmingly a female condition.
A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis reinforces the point. It estimated general-population BPD prevalence at about 2.4 per cent, while concluding that population evidence suggests a more balanced distribution between the sexes than the traditional stereotype would imply. That alone should make us cautious about building a theory of cultural change around women with BPD.
There is another obvious problem. Even if women really did have substantially higher rates of BPD, showing that people with a particular psychological condition participated in important historical events would not demonstrate that the condition caused those events. This is the difference between biography and causal history.
Suppose we could establish beyond reasonable doubt that some famous historical woman had BPD. That might illuminate her relationships, emotional reactions, private behaviour and perhaps particular decisions. It would not establish that BPD explains the historical movement in which she participated. To establish something remotely like that, one would need to demonstrate a causal pathway between the psychiatric characteristics and the historical outcome, while distinguishing those effects from ideology, religion, economics, technology, institutions, class interests, demographic change and the behaviour of thousands or millions of psychologically ordinary people.
Retrospective diagnosis makes the problem worse. Diagnosing a living patient with BPD is not simply a matter of finding a colourful anecdote about emotional volatility. Clinicians evaluate enduring patterns across contexts and consider alternative explanations. Trying to diagnose someone who died decades or centuries ago from biographies, hostile memoirs, correspondence and selected episodes is necessarily much less reliable. Historical figures cannot be interviewed, differential diagnoses cannot properly be conducted, and contemporary descriptions may themselves be partisan or incomplete.
There is a powerful temptation here towards circular reasoning. Begin with a theory that BPD women have disproportionately changed history, search history for influential women who were volatile, impulsive, sexually unconventional, intensely emotional or involved in turbulent relationships, retrospectively label them borderline, and then present those cases as evidence that borderline women disproportionately changed history. The theory selects the evidence that subsequently appears to confirm the theory.
There is an additional problem with the looseness of psychological categories when applied outside the clinic. Human personality exists on dimensions. Plenty of people without BPD experience jealousy, rage, fear of abandonment, impulsiveness, unstable relationships or dramatic emotional reactions. Historical periods involving revolution, war, religious conflict and social breakdown naturally generate extreme behaviour among people who would not necessarily meet criteria for a personality disorder under ordinary conditions.
The danger is therefore not merely overdiagnosis but explanatory inflation. Once BPD becomes a sufficiently elastic historical category, almost any disruptive woman can be incorporated into it. Her disruptive behaviour becomes evidence of borderline pathology, while the alleged borderline pathology becomes the explanation for her disruptive behaviour. Very little independent evidence remains.
The gendered framing introduces another distortion. If men with BPD tend on average to manifest some of the pathology differently, more aggression, impulsivity, substance misuse and other externalising behaviour, then their historical effects might simply appear under different descriptions. A violent, reckless or chronically unstable man might historically have been called a drunkard, criminal, adventurer, tyrant, rake or revolutionary rather than retrospectively identified as having BPD. The historical record could therefore reproduce precisely the diagnostic bias that modern psychiatric researchers are trying to understand.
Indeed, once we start explaining history through psychopathology, why stop with BPD? Narcissistic personality traits would seem an obvious candidate for political leadership. Psychopathy and antisocial traits could be invoked in histories of crime and political violence. Depression has unquestionably affected writers, artists and politicians. Alcoholism has altered families and perhaps political decisions. Mania may have contributed to extraordinary bursts of creativity and equally extraordinary disasters. Autism-spectrum traits have been retrospectively attributed to numerous scientists and intellectuals, usually with varying degrees of speculation.
The result could rapidly become history rewritten as an enormous psychiatric ward. That may produce entertaining biographies, but it does not necessarily produce better causal explanation.
The more defensible proposition is modest. Human psychological variation matters historically. Some people with severe personality disorders have undoubtedly exercised influence over others. A charismatic, emotionally volatile individual can destabilise a family or organisation, while an unusually manipulative or impulsive person placed in a position of power may cause damage extending far beyond the immediate interpersonal circle. There is nothing implausible about studying such effects.
BPD itself also deserves serious treatment rather than caricature. It is associated with substantial suffering, psychiatric comorbidity and elevated suicide risk. Yet people diagnosed with BPD are not interchangeable representatives of a personality type, and many improve substantially over time. An authoritative clinical review notes that people who have received the diagnosis can go on to live fulfilling lives. Treating the diagnosis as though it identified a permanent class of socially disruptive women does neither psychiatry nor historical analysis much service.
The most interesting question raised by the original argument may therefore be different from the one it thinks it has answered. Psychology surely belongs in history, but how much explanatory weight can psychiatric categories legitimately bear? At the level of an individual biography they may sometimes explain a great deal. At the level of a marriage or family they may explain still more. At the level of a small organisation dominated by one personality they could conceivably become crucial.
But the farther one moves outward, from individual to family, from family to institution, from institution to political movement and finally from political movement to civilisation, the harder the causal claim becomes to demonstrate. Large historical changes normally have multiple causes operating simultaneously. Economic incentives, technological change, institutions, ideas, demographic pressures, wars, religious beliefs and political organisation do not disappear merely because some participants possessed unusual personalities.
There is therefore a worthwhile essay to be written about personality disorders and history, but it requires much greater restraint than a thesis about women with BPD shaping our culture suggests. BPD may help explain the behaviour of particular individuals where good evidence exists. It may even help explain particular interpersonal networks through which those individuals exercised influence. What it cannot presently sustain is the enormous leap from selected psychological biographies to a general explanation of cultural history.
That leap substitutes diagnosis for explanation. History is already complicated enough without putting an entire civilisation on the psychiatrist's couch.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/192379924X?lv=shuf&channelId=520&plpRedirect=mhFallback