‘Deviation from optimal psychological well-being (a state of contentment that we all strive to achieve). Deviation is characterised by a lack of positive self-attitudes, personal growth, autonomy, accurate view of reality, environmental mastery, and resistance to stress; all of which prevent the individual from accessing their potential, which is known as self-actualisation. ‘ (Psychology for AS Level – Michael W. Eysenck) This is the view that abnormality is related to the lack of a “contented existence”.
This is a view is put forward by humanistic psychologists (for example Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow). They both felt that a key standard and goal for human endeavour is self-actualisation. One advantage of this approach is that it focuses on positive characteristics. Rather than illness this slant concentrates on health. A criticism of the definition given for ‘deviation from ideal mental health’ is that it is dependant on an ideal. This perspective requires specification of what ‘ideal’ mental health is.
Falling short of this specified ideal is an indication of mental illness. A person may be defined as “abnormal” even if they seem to be functioning all right. From this perspective, we are all striving for some ideal (personal or cultural), and many of us will never reach it. We all at some point deviate from or fall short of the ideal. So, in this sense, we are all abnormal to a certain degree, at least until we (if ever) reach the ideal (whatever that may be). These vague criteria are also difficult to measure.
How can you rate self-acceptance? Then the question “Whose ideal? ” is vitally important. Is it the ideal for the individual? The species? The culture? God? (Weckowicz, 1984). What if the ideal is unrealistic or unobtainable? In conclusion these abstract ideals are hard to define, and like social norms they are relative across groups and across time. Not all societies feel that Roger’s and Maslow’s aims are ultimate for psychological health. Answer a + b part (ii) Deviation from Social Norms
‘Behaviour that does not follow socially accepted patterns; violation of them is considered abnormal. ‘ (Psychology for AS Level – Michael W. Eysenck) All societies have standards or norms for appropriate behaviours and beliefs (expectations about how people should behave as well as what they should think) (Gross and McIlveen, 1998, p. 568). Social norms are defined as rules that regulate human life, including social conventions, explicit laws and implicit cultural standards.
The social definition of abnormality is similar to the statistical definition in that statistical rarity usually characterises those psychological features that are judged abnormal, but with ‘deviation from social norms’ the relevant dimensions of behaviour are specified in terms of the values of society on a whole. Behaviour that is beyond the bounds of social acceptability would be considered a manifestation of mental illness by this definition. The social definition seems to capture some of the way in which the concept of mental illness is applied. These unwritten social rules are culturally relative and era-dependant.
The notion of social deviancy is related to moral codes and standards. These are subjectively defined by a society that varies with current and widespread social attitudes, but these would need constant updating and different standards for different cultures and societies. For example, homosexuality was once illegal and considered to be a mental disorder because it deviated from the social norm. Now there are campaigns for gay marriages to be accepted and afforded the same benefits as heterosexual marriages, and this shows the extent to which this definition of abnormality is subject to change.
Social deviance need also be defined by the context in which behaviour occurs. Screaming at the top of your lungs that you love a certain performing artist, for instance ‘Craig David’, in a classroom would not be considered acceptable, but in a different setting, like a concert, this behaviour may not be deemed even unusual. Even within societies there are sub-cultural differences in relation to, for example, different religious groups that have different norms. This makes it very hard to define.
The other major limitation of the social deviance approach is that social deviancy is not necessarily a bad thing. Some people choose to live a non-conformist lifestyle. Other people’s behaviour can be socially deviant for their culture or society at a certain time but may be motivated by high principles and would be considered morally correct in other social settings. For instance the people that spoke out against the atrocities that were being committed in Nazi Germany were considered “social deviants”.