In my last post I posted the first round of thoughts about definitions of abnormality. We had been asked to do this at the beginning of the term and then again at the end of term. What follows is my end of term thoughts.

~ ~ ~

            Reflecting upon my original definitions of abnormality I realized that very little has changed. In fact, if anything, the disorders we have considered and the discussions that have evolved from those disorders have served to solidify my belief that abnormality is a dichotomous system in which normality is considered the central point from which all that lies outside is deemed abnormal, and often, deviant. Deviations or alternative forms of expression can prove problematic for anyone concerned with being alienated. The DSM-IV-TR is just one systematic demonstration of how normality is defined by a dominant majority. Disorder categories, such as the various personality disorders or gender identity disorder, illustrate that very little space for expressions of eccentricity or diversity is made within normality. This also speaks to my original assertion that abnormality can often be little more than a pathologization of individuals who create discomfort for those within dominant culture, therefore perpetuating the marginalization of minority and alternative communities.

I am, however, encouraged by discussion of a possible shift from a categorical to a spectrum based diagnostic system for the DSM-V as this would potentially allow for greater diversity and individuality. With such a shift, abnormality has the potential to become less stigmatizing and, as such, likely to encourage more people to seek treatment when there are behaviors, attitudes, and patterns of thought are disrupting to their ability to function day-to-day. A clear understanding of our own biases remains a critical component to determining whether a client’s abnormality is truly demonstrating such a disturbance in functioning or is simply a expression of individuality.

by Del Rapier

The concept of abnormality first assumes a dichotomous system in which normality is the preferred option and all that lies outside normality is deemed abnormal. This simplistic, but all to common, methodology for defining abnormality is problematic at best. Such a system of categorizing presumes a singular definition of normality, leaving all deviations or alternative forms of expression subject to categorization as deviant or abnormal. Often normality is decided upon by those who are among the dominant majority of a given culture or system. As such, normality often leaves very little space for expressions of diversity, let alone eccentricity. Within this definition of normality, abnormality can often be little more than that which makes those within the dominant majority experience discomfort, therefore perpetuating the marginalization of minority and alternative communities.

In looking at normality and abnormality as a continuum, rather than a binary system, a reframing of abnormality is possible, allowing for diverse ways of being without seeking to denigrate such behavior. One example is the Icarus Project which seeks to redefine what it means to live with mental illness. Movements such as this offer an example of the benefits of reframing abnormality in such a way as to move away from a model which stigmatizes abnormality, and therefore the individual.

Clearly, from a psychological perspective, abnormality does exist in the sense that there are behaviors, attitudes, and patterns of thought which can create ongoing stress and disruption to one’s ability to function day-to-day. As such, it is important to be aware of the severity of affect such abnormality has on a client. At the same time, a clear understanding of ones own biases is just as important when determining whether a client’s abnormality is truly creating a disturbance to their ability to function or is simply a different form of expression.