Abnormal behaviours are easy to notice and measure when observed with this first definition, yet also comes with weaknesses. The main difficulty with the concept of deviation from social norms is that it varies as times change. What is socially acceptable now may not have been socially acceptable 50 years ago. If we define abnormality in terms of deviation from social norms we open the door to definitions based on prevailing social morals and attitudes which then allows mental health professionals to classify those individuals who transgress against social attitudes as mentally ill.
Cultural relativism also causes problems when attempting to use deviation of social norms as a definition of abnormality. Disorders are defined or diagnosed in different ways in different places by different groups. This means that a diagnosis may be different for the same person in two different cultures.
The second definition of abnormal behaviour is failure to function. Under this definition a person is considered abnormal if they are unable to cope with the demands of everyday life. They may be unable to perform the behaviours necessary for day –to-day living, e.g. Self-care, hold down a job, interact meaningfully with others and making themselves understood etc.
A strength of this definition is that as soon as depression, or any other disorder, interferes with such demands then the individual will tend to label their own behaviour ‘abnormal’, and would seek treatment. This definition also comes with weaknesses too though. The main difficulty with this concept is that in order to determine ‘failure to function adequately’ someone needs to decide if this is actually the case. It may be that the person is experiencing personal distress, notice that they aren’t coping desirably and therefore themselves determines that this behaviour is undesirable. On the other hand however, it may be that the individual is quite content with the situation and/or is simply unaware that they are not coping and it is simply others who are uncomfortable and judge the behaviour as abnormal.
Again cultural relativism also causes problems when attempting to use failure to function as a definition of abnormality. The failure to function criterion is likely to result in different diagnoses when applied to people from different cultures, because the standard of one culture is being used to measure another. This may explain why lower class and non-white people are more often diagnosed with mental health issues because their lifestyles are non-traditional and this may lead to a judgement of failing to function.
Then lastly the third definition of abnormal behaviour is deviation from mental health. Under this definition, rather than defining what is abnormal, we define what normal/ideal is and anything that deviates from this is regarded as abnormal. This requires us to decide on the characteristics we consider necessary to mental health. Psychologists vary, but usual characteristics includes a positive view of yourself, capability for growth and development, an accurate perception of reality, autonomy and independence, positive friendships and relationships and lastly the ability to meet the varying demands of day-to-day situations.
A strength of this concept is that it’s a given template that will keep you mentally healthy. However, a weakness is that this template is set too high. It is questionable who can achieve all of these criteria and therefore following those criteria would class nearly everyone abnormal and defeating the concept.
Just like the previous definitions cultural relativism causes problems when attempting to use deviation from ideal mental health. If we apply these criteria to people from non-western or even non-middle class social groups we will probably find a higher incidence or abnormality.
In conclusion we can see that the first two attempts to define abnormality were different in several ways, for example ‘deviation from social norms’ is based on what others think about us, whereas ‘failure to function adequately’ focuses mainly on the individual’s own sense of abnormal functioning. However, the final definition ‘deviation from ideal mental health’ is then a mixture of the two – it aims to be objective, yet does take into account subjective feelings. This supports that no definition is adequate on its own, and therefore abnormality can only be defined by taking into account each of these concepts at the same time.
