‘Abnormal’ means to deviate from what is usual or from some sort of standard. The problem lies in establishing a standard.
1. Deviation from social norms
Abnormality can be defined in terms of standards of social behaviour. For example, it is acceptable to wear very little clothing on a beach, but not when walking down the high street. Such standards are socially agreed and culturallybased, though there are many cross-cultural similarities. Many people who are labelled as clinically abnormal do behave in a socially deviant way, for example, schizophrenics behave anti-socially and erratically.
The term ‘clinical’ is used to distinguish an abnormality that has been diagnosed by a trained professional (e.g. a clinical psychologist) from the everyday use of the term ‘abnormality’.
Advantages of this approach:
- This has the benefit of including some consideration of the effect of deviant behaviour on others.
Limitations of this approach:
- Social deviations vary according to prevailing moral perspectives and this approach allows serious abuse of individual rights. Examples of deviation through history have been witchcraft, homosexuality, unmarried motherhood, delinquency and political dissent. Cultural relativism is an issue for all definitions of abnormality, i.e. the fact that any definition is relative to what is considered acceptable (or not) for any particular cultural group. The term ‘culture’ refers to the rules, customs and ways of interacting that are shared by a collection of people.
- Social deviation is related to social and cultural context. What is deviant behaviour in Britain may not be deviant elsewhere, and vice versa.
- Social deviation can be a good thing, as in the case of people who resisted German occupation in the Second World War, so it may be dangerous to regard deviancy as automatically abnormal.
2. Failure to function adequately
Certain behaviours are distressing and dysfunctional for the individual. For example, being depressed disrupts a person’s ability to work, to look after him/herself and/or to conduct satisfying relations with other people.
Rosenhan and Seligman (1989) suggested that certain elements jointly determine abnormality. Singly, they may cause no problem, but when several co-occur, they are symptomatic of abnormality and are related to a failure to function adequately. These elements are suffering, maladaptiveness (personally and socially), irrationality and incomprehensibility, unpredictability and loss of control, vividness and unconventionality, observer discomfort, and violation of moral standards.
Rosenhan and Seligman’s list does include some universal indicators of undesirable behaviour, such as distress to oneself or others, i.e. it is not all culturally relative.
Advantages of this approach:
- Using the concepts of dysfunction and distress acknowledges the subjective experience of the individual.
Limitations to this approach:
- In some situations, apparently dysfunctional behaviour may be functional, for example, depression can be an adaptive response to stress.
- Personal distress may not be a good indicator of an undesirable state. Although many people do seek psychiatric help because they feel distressed, not all mental disorders are accompanied by a state of distress (e.g. anti-social personality disorder). Anti-social personality disorder is similar to Bowlby’s concept of affectionless psychopathy. People with anti-social personality disorder have a disregard for the feelings of others. However, this causes no distress to the person with the disorder. However, in other situations, distress is a ‘healthy’ response up to a point (e.g. the death of a close friend). This means having to make subjective decisions about how much distress is tolerable. It might be helpful to include the distress of others as a criterion of adaptive behaviour.
- Diagnoses of dysfunction and distress require judgements to be made by others, which are inevitably influenced by social and cultural values.
3. Deviation from mental health
Doctors use the concept of physical health as a yardstick to measure ill-health, for example, a body temperature outside the normal range indicates illness. Jahoda (1958) suggested that we could similarly define psychological well-being in terms of signs of psychological health in order to recognise mental illness. The key features would be self-acceptance, potential for growth and development, autonomy, accurate perception of reality, environmental competence, and positive interpersonal relations. There is some overlap between Jahoda’s list and the one from Rosenhan and Seligman.
Advantages of this approach:
- It is preferable to have some absolutes (signs of healthiness) rather than relying on subjective criteria that are prone to cultural relativism.
Limitations of this approach:
Carl Rogers (1959) was the ‘father’ of the counselling movement. Like Jahoda, Rogers defined abnormality in terms of the characteristics of a mentally healthy person. He emphasised the importance of having a sense of self and being self-accepting as prerequisites for mental health.
- Such approaches are nevertheless influenced by cultural attitudes, for example, autonomy is not a universal ideal.
- The list is idealistic – few people actually manage to achieve most of the behaviours identified.
- It is possible to measure physical illness objectively (e.g. blood pressure), but the concepts for mental health are too vague for the purpose of diagnosis.
PROGRESS CHECK
- Give an example of a socially acceptable definition of behaviour.
- Name two behaviours from Jahoda’s list.
