"Attempts to define abnormality are always limited by cultural differences" - Consider how definitions of abnormality may be influenced by cultural differences.

“Attempts to define abnormality are always

limited by cultural differences”

Consider how definitions of abnormality may be influenced by cultural differences (18m)

All of the definitions of abnormality that we have studied, have been culturally specific, meaning that, what may possibly be classed as normal in one culture, could be classed as extremely abnormal to another. This problem of cultural relativism limits the definitions accuracy in being able to define abnormality as a whole. It is near impossible to make an absolute statement about what is normal, or abnormal in human behaviour, purely because of cultural factors.

The four definitions we studied do not take cultural differences into account. The Statistical Infrequency definition groups people together, based on certain measured characteristics, and put this information into a distribution pattern to classify whether people fit into the ‘average’, or whether they fall outside the average, where they are then deemed to be abnormal.

However, only certain characteristics can be measured, and this also put forth the question of – which characteristics show abnormality? This definition groups people together, and deals with statistics, making the results broad and inconclusive. There is also the problem of desirability in some of the factors, where something that could possibly be seen as abnormal, is admired, and so people don’t look upon is as abnormal because they aspire to it.

The second definition, Deviation From Social Norms, explains that society sets up its own moral standards, and rules for behaviour, and people should abide by these, and if they don’t, then they become regarded as ‘deviant’ or abnormal. Yet different societies have different standards, and different expectations to what they regard as normal, and so this definition fails when trying to sum up abnormality as a whole.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The Deviation From Ideal Mental Health definition looked at the idea of mental health in oppose to mental illness, and put forward six main points, suggesting that if these were deviated from, that that person would then be susceptible to developing a psychological problem. This definition treats people as individuals, and deals with internal, rather than external factors, and also deals with emotions rather than statistics, which makes it more personal, yet is still doesn’t overcome the problem of culture. Some cultures may affect people fitting these criteria, yet this doesn’t mean that they are abnormal, or have a bad state of mental health.

The last definition we studied was Failure To Function Adequately. This definition suggests that when people’s behaviour interferes with their daily functioning, and they do not function adequately, then they are abnormal. This definition realises that there is a higher incidence of psychological problems among people from a minority group, however this may be due to their more stressful life experiences, and so even this definition doesn’t bring culture as a whole into the equation.

Cultural relativism is the ability to view the beliefs and customs of other people within the context of their culture rather than their own. Some people see those from other cultures, and see what they do or believe in as abnormal, purely because it is different to what they do and believe within their own culture. In that person’s eyes, the other person would be deemed as abnormal, yet this is not true. Everyone has different expectations of behaviour, and these vary not only from culture to culture, but also from person to person.

These differences in culture may lead to misdiagnosis in some cases. If the doctor for example is from a different culture to the patient, and they do not question them about their culture, then the doctor may think the severity of the problem is much worse than it actually is, because of having no knowledge of the person’s background and beliefs. This in turn may lead to mistreatment of the problem, which may even lead to further, unnecessary problems.

For example, a man in Greenland has an uncontrollable urge to leave his shelter, tear off his clothes and stand naked in the Arctic weather. In Great Britain, is someone chose to do this on top of Bodmin Moor for example, they could almost certainly be classed as abnormal. However, in Greenland, Alaska and the Canadian Arctic, this person would be diagnosed as having pibloqtoq : this has been linked to isolated environmental conditions and limited calcium uptake in summer months. Thus, this shows, that if someone didn’t know where this person came from, they would be very quick to class him as abnormal, yet because of his environmental circumstances, this is a proven problem, and although it still wouldn’t be classed as completely normal, it is still explainable, and there is a stable reason behind it.

Another example of this is that schizophrenia is two to seven times more likely to be diagnosed in Afro-Caribbean men living in the UK than in white men. So this also tells us that not only do cultures need to be acknowledged, but also, subcultures.

However, all cultured want to support any individuals who experience some kind of ‘abnormal’ behaviour, for example, not eating. Therefore suggesting that there are some universal indicators of abnormality.

Despite this, if one of the four definitions had to be chosen, then the Deviation From Ideal Mental Health idea would probably be the best choice. This is because it treats people individually, instead of grouping them together, and so there is less chance of cultural differences being a problem.

However, in conclusion, none of the definitions can successfully define abnormality successfully, because of culture.

[email protected]