With nature producing this normal distribution curve, an immediate problem arises: where do you draw the line as to what is normal and what is abnormal? I.e. why should being in the bottom 2.145% make a person abnormal yet being in the bottom 5% makes another person normal? And who or what is to distinguish between these two behaviours? Statistical definitions of abnormality entirely depend upon cut-off points which are often determined by standard deviations, a measure of the amount by which something deviates from the mean. However, this would perceptibly vary from population to population since cut-off points set for one population are not essentially going to apply to another cultural group.
The ‘statistical infrequency’ definition of abnormality also fails to take into account the fact that some ‘abnormal’ behaviour is actually desirable. For example, someone with an exceptionally high IQ would be deemed a genius and very fortunate, rather than abnormal. The same would apply to a person who could play guitar brilliantly – their behaviour would be statistically infrequent but it would not necessarily mean the person was abnormal, in fact, the individual would probably be said to be gifted and talented.
It is also thought that some mental illnesses are on the increase (such as depression and certain anxiety disorders); consequently, this behaviour is not rare and thus is not statistically infrequent. Another discrepancy that might be found within the statistical approach to abnormality lies with the statistical definitions since they directly correlate to a standard set by a particular population. This standard will not automatically apply to all cultures, or even to people in different age groups or genders. For example, children are far more likely to be afraid of the supernatural or monsters since this is a rational fear for children to have because we accept it as normal for their age, whereas for adults, this kind of behaviour is much less likely to be accepted.
Deviation from social norms is behaviour that does not follow socially accepted patterns and because this behaviour violates and appears to condemn society, it is regarded as abnormal. The unwritten rules of society indicate that humans must behave in a socially accepted way by not breaking with conventions and by doing as is expected. This definition of abnormality may be considered as slightly more accurate than the aforementioned statistical infrequency since many people who are labelled abnormal do often behave in a socially deviant way. For example, people suffering from an anti-social personality disorder would behave very assertively towards others because they feel no guilt due to their lack of conscience.
Again, there are limitations to this definition, particularly since the social rules we should supposedly abide by are culturally relative and era-dependent. What is considered as the norm changes over time, meaning that something considered as socially deviant 50 years or so ago, may be the norm now, an example of this could be couples cohabiting before marrying.
The concept of social deviancy also relies heavily on moral standards. However, the context in which these standards have been set is particularly important to consider. Morality changes with time and especially culture, as what may be deemed to acceptable/normal in one culture, may not be in another. For instance, the Kwakiutl Indians engage in special ceremonies where they burn valuable blankets with the intention of casting shame on their rivals. However, if someone were to deliberately set fire to a valuable possession in our society, it is highly likely that they would regarded as mentally ill of some description.
Going against society is not always criticised as being abnormal, however. The freedom fighters who opposed apartheid in South Africa for example, were not abnormal, they were just people who supported racial equality. Therefore, it is possibly just as important to consider why someone may be socially deviant because although some do chose a non-conformist lifestyle, others just may be socially deviant because their behaviour is fuelled by high principles. Nonetheless, some might argue that the high principles motivating someone to be socially deviant are equally abnormal as someone wishing not to conform anyway.
For the ‘deviation of social norms’ definition to be less flawed in the case of abnormality, it would also be appropriate to take into account the time and context of the supposedly social deviant behaviour. For example, wearing beach clothes would be completely inapt while out shopping on the high street whereas this kind of attire would be well suited to the beach or a swimming pool.
Both definitions have their faults and limitations; nevertheless, it would be a very laborious task to ascribe an exact and pertinent definition to abnormality, especially in the terms of psychology. As there is such an abundance of necessities to take into account along with the effects of culture relativism and the changing times, it is probably true to say abnormality is a constantly changing definition and that it is wholly dependent on society’s view of what is normal and what is not. Whether society and/or the majority are morally correct to decide these boundaries, is another question.