Another flaw would be that we have no guide as to how much is too much.
To what extent must we stray from a social norm before we are classed as abnormal?
To give an example, it is now quite a popular trend to follow spiritual excersises such as Yoga or Chi Kung, but if a person were to follow this more strongly and meditate daily, pray to the Budda, and discipline themselves more, they would be seen as abnormal. The reason? Because this differs too much from the norm. But, to diverge an equal amount from another social norm, may not be considered abnormal.
Also, to backtrack a little, this could give us another example of not being universal, because, in China or Tibet these practices would be a frequent occurrence.
So, overall, while this study may be a slightly helpful, it is, ultimately, majority based, and not everyone who doesn't conform to the majority can be considered abnormal.
Now we move on to deviation from social norms.
This model explains that each society has its own standards to which its members must comply (social norms).
These are considered the explicit and implicit rules for appropriate behaviour.
However, as social norms differ from each society, this approach can never be used universally. An example of this could be that some societies see it as perfectly normal to go out drinking, smoking, and gambling, while others would deeply forbid this. This causes the problem that we cannot look at another society and list all its faults, or label its behaviour abnormal, because it is simply following its own social norms.
This view also assumes that if a behaviour is accepted within the society then it is normal.
In this light then, the behaviour of Hitler and the Nazi's would be accepted because it complied with the social norms. But how can this justify millions of people dying?
Yet another problem with this study is that not everyone within a society will have the same social norms.
E.G to some, it is now acceptable to be homosexual, while to others, it goes against their rules of conduct, so here we see a conflicting view within one society, so which one do we choose as the implicit social rule? Different standards by which to judge abnormality now exist in one society.
This could be classed as a person's own social rules. For example, while one parent thinks it totally acceptable to smack a child, another may not.
Therefore, this view implies that if a person does not conform to the social norms then they are abnormal, but how can this be if they are conforming to their own personal norms, and are most definitely in excellent mental health.
Also, we must realise that a certain amount of divergence from social norms is needed in order for society to grow, and function.
This view does explain, to a small extent, what abnormal behaviour is, but, yet again, it is limited in how useful because it is not universal.
Failure to function adequately is a model that views behaviour as abnormal if it hinders an individuals or groups well being.
E.G if a person were so mentally ill that they harmed the people around them, and prevented them from 'normal' behaviour, they would considered be abnormal.
Rosenhan & Seligman (1989) suggested that if a combination of the following criteria were encountered then it may suggest a psychological disorder.
The criteria are:
1) Personal distress
2) Maladaptiveness
3) Irrationality
4) Unpredictability
5) Unconventionality
6) Observer discomfort
7) Violation of moral and ideal standards
There is a problem with these criteria though, because they rely on a subjective judgement of other people. For example, whose moral standards must we use in order to decide if a person has violated them? The same could be said for observer discomfort, because each person is not going to be affected to the same amount by the same stimuli.
Also, People who choose a different lifestyle, such as gypsies, would, under the criteria of irrationality, unpredictability, and unconventionality, be classed as abnormal. They are not abnormal; they just differ from the majority and have an alternative lifestyle.
The criteria of personal distress also has problems. Some people would consider it normal to feel no distress about the way they behave, while others may think it strange to respond in this way. But, both can be appropriate responses to certain situations.
So, although this is, at present the most useful definition of abnormal behaviour, we have seen it is not without its problems. The biggest of these being that it all comes down to the individual, and they cannot always be relied upon to be impartial.
Next is deviation from ideal mental health.
This approach tries to consider what ideal metal health is, before labelling diverges from this as abnormal.
Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers both believe that the criteria used to define ideal mental health should have an ultimate goal. They suggested that this goal should be self-actualisation.
Rogers stated that we all have a need for positive regard, and the fulfilment of this need will affect our future development.
He said that those who received unconditional positive regard will develop higher self-esteem, can realise their full potential. But those who didn't would feel unworthy, and feel that they would only be acceptable if they conformed to other people’s standards. These people are unable to be self-actualised because they no longer know what their values and goals are, and what is meaningful to them.
The major problem with this model is that very few people will ever reach self-actualisation because most people’s goals are too high, and unattainable.
E.G Leonardo Da Vinci would be regarded as self-actualised because his work is as diverse as anatomy, architecture, Botany, Geometry, maths, physics, engineering, and, most importantly, this renaissance figure was the painter of the world famous Mona Lisa.
This example shows that very few of us will ever reach attain our goals, as it is very rare to find such a person, thus, leading to low self-esteem.
Also, using attainment of a goal such as self-actualisation gives us the problem of value judgement. What ideal standard should be used, and who should make the judgements? Different people and cultures will have different thoughts about what is ideal.
As this approach considers what ideal mental health is it is making many problems for itself because it must now define normal, and abnormal behaviour, and cannot possibly do this universally.
Cultural factors in abnormality
Is abnormality culturally specific? This is a frequently asked question and has 2 answers.
The first is Cultural universality. This states that mental disorders are world-wide, and that causes and symptoms are all very similar everywhere, however, after much research psychologists have found that only a few, but not all, are the same.
The second is Cultural relativism. This maintains that mental disorders and their symptoms are determined by the norms and values of a society or culture.
So, according to this view, we cannot make judgements about normal and abnormal behaviour, because it changes all around the world
This cultural relativist view has been supported for many years, and Ruth Benedict, an anthropologist, suggested that our western definitions or abnormal behaviour cannot be used to observe other cultures, as behaviour that is considered normal in one society is considered quite unusual in others.
For example, in some cultures it is still normal to eat the remains of a recently deceased relative, but to us, this would be considered extremely abnormal, and called cannibalism
Benedict observed that normality was a culturally defined concept, meaning that the definition of normal and abnormal would differ between each culture according to their social norms.
Research also shows that some mental disorders are specific only to certain cultures suggesting that it is the result of that societies norms and values.
I.E eating disorders affect mainly women and men in the western world, perhaps because it is seen to be unacceptable to be over a certain weight, and people in the western world are more obsessed with their physical appearance, but only because societies norms have dictated that fat is bad.
However, there are some disorders that are universal, such as people who cannot assume a basic social role, and are considered abnormal in any society. Also, certain mental conditions such as schizophrenia and psychopathic behaviour occurs in all cultures.
Conclusion
So, do any of these models actually define what abnormal behaviour is? And is it actually possible to fully explain such a diverse term in one small model?
I think that although these models are very limited in their approach they do give some base to diagnose a psychological condition.
The Falling of all of these models is their lack of universality and that they depend on the subjective judgements of another person, which can very rarely be achieved.