Abstract
The work presents a critical and subjective analysis of abnormality from the point of view of psychiatry and the disputes, questions, practices, approaches and perspectives associated with this phenomenon.
A: abnormal behavior
For me, abnormal behavior deviated from the general moral and social norms accepted in the interacting community. It is worth noting that if I were asked to set clear boundaries in the most controversial cases, I would find it difficult to answer from the very first word. After all, the younger a person who behaves “abnormally” by society’s standards, the more calmly it is perceived by others: a child screaming in the street will not surprise anyone, unlike an adult. Familiarity with abnormality allowed me to understand these boundaries. Firstly, it creates a stressful situation, even for others. Secondly, it is destructive to the social environment, preventing people from interacting effectively. Third, it negatively affects a person’s ability to function. Finally, it is dangerous – resulting in a 4 D of abnormal psychology (Sue 39).A more precise definition gives a universal formulation for applying the phenomenon in any era. The manners of antiquity reflected virtue, although there were warlike cities like Sparta where modern morality would have been the highest standard. Humanistic ideas were debased in the Middle Ages but again found themselves at the center of major philosophical movements in the Renaissance. Even the pandemic has changed the ethics of social interaction in recent history. Accordingly, abnormal behavior in the understanding of an ordinary person has changed over the centuries like the Overton window: what previously seemed unthinkable from the point of view of society can now be found at every step, be it loose clothing, free religion, and much more.
B: controversy
The criticism of this section is well-founded and includes the following points. Firstly, the allocation of abnormality in a separate area contributes to the stigmatization of oppressed and sick people. Special attention to them with a negative connotation in the word’s lexical meaning can create unnecessary pathologies that will complicate the fight against the disease (Sue 72). Secondly, abnormality often does not take into account social and cultural factors that may be dictated, for example, by the centuries-old history of the traditions of certain nationalities, which in the eyes of a representative of another community will seem incredible. The definition of abnormal behavior is still not precise, which is why disputes continue. DSM-5 provides the most multi-criteria assessment of the diagnosis, supported by both retrospective data and the latest research, and involves extensive preliminary work before recommendations (DSM-5. Chapter 3.2).
N: normal and abnormal
Some sources distinguish rarity as the main characteristic of abnormality. On the other hand, absolute benefactor and normality are rare in our lives. Abnormal psychology does not seek to make all the people usually behave. The task of science is to ensure that people, for various reasons, as little as possible cross the line of dysfunction, distress, and destructive behavior in society (Sue 10). Accordingly, normality is not given as much attention as the antonym, so the boundaries are vague. The uniqueness of each person only exacerbates this problem, requiring a well-individual subjective approach for each case. Culture, in this case, plays the role of one of the determinants of human behavior, which may lie outside the concept of normality accepted in society – the context also depends on the culture itself and the chosen society.
O: approaches
There are several approaches to abnormal behavior, and I would choose the cognitive one since, in my opinion, it covers the whole problem more than others, subdividing it into structures and processes. Prejudice is a powerful hindrance in the study of behavior and, among other things, can cause cognitive impairment. Cultural and social factors come into play here, and the most critical view without prejudice can allow you to choose the right approach to treatment. In other cases, stigmatization or relapse is possible. Psychotherapy, in this case, should be considered a possible set of tools, depending on the initial conditions and the individual treatment situation. How well it helps depends on the psychiatrist’s qualifications, the problem’s complexity, and other external factors.
R: DSM-5
The DSM-5, while providing a broad approach to understanding abnormal behavior, needs to be further adapted by current research and practices. Since, even now, disputes over methods of treatment and even a clear definition of abnormality do not subside, any standardization is almost impossible. Some disorders may result from others or completely duplicate the symptoms and physical effects, while psychiatric diseases may also take on new forms. Again, treatment based on outdated data can lead to stigmatization and relapse, which, in conditions of insufficient information and instability for some patients, can have irreversible consequences. It is impossible to make universal recommendations since subjectivity plays a vital role in psychiatric illness, so I agree with the steering committee on this issue. Information about the abnormality should be exclusively descriptive and scientific, as an aid to the specialist in building his professional conclusions.
M: critical thinking
Skepticism is the norm in scientific circles and is extremely useful in everyday life, for example, as it allows you to filter information from the news. When it comes to medicine, the stakes are high and critical thinking is essential. A warning contributes to a pause before making decisions, revealing various prejudices and stereotypes that interfere with adequate actions. Based on these judgments, it is difficult to say whether there will be more psychiatric hospitals. Critical thinking can be embedded in a person at the parental, school, and university education stage, which most often precedes the development of mental illness. In this regard, the number of psychiatric hospitals is a consequence of the broader factors in developing critical thinking in society and depends entirely on them.
A: hypothesis and proof
A supporter of any hypothesis does not yet oblige a person to know its entire evidence base. Such a deep approach is necessary for science and medicine in particular because it is often about the lives and destinies of people. Accordingly, speculators and their activities should be monitored much more strictly in these areas, and the burden of proof unconditionally lies with the supporters of the hypotheses. In everyday life, this phenomenon is not mandatory, although developing critical thinking in a person contributes to its manifestation. People allow themselves only those statements in which they are sure and thus prevent the development of abnormal behavior, at least on their part.
L: perspectives
It is essential to understand clear boundaries when abnormal behavior begins and maintain strict ethics in dealing with patients and this issue in the scientific community. Vague concepts create the need for a subjective and individual approach to each patient, which does not contribute to the classification and systematization of knowledge on the one hand. On the other hand, such an approach develops the professionalism of specialists whose primary weapon in the fight against morbidity is experience. The integration of theoretical systems and practices with the field of psychology can give at the initial stage only certain advantages in specific situations of points of contact between the two spheres. However, in the future, interdisciplinary methods may have a great lot, given a similar trend in many sciences today.
References
“DSM-5. Chapter 3.2. Diagnosing and classifying abnormal behavior”. Pressbooks. Web.
Sue, David, et al. Understanding abnormal behavior. Cengage learning, 2021.