History: THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL ABUSE OF PSYCHOLOGY
The ideal underlying clinical psychology and psychiatry is to help humankind,
but in various societies at various times, these profession's have been
used toward political ends. In order to confine or control individuals holding
dissident views, some political leaders have sanctioned abuses of personal
liberties in the name of psychiatry. In large part, the potential for
abuse arises from the very definition of abnormality that was discussed in
earlier.
There we suggested that whether or not people are seen as abnormal
depends on whether they possess a "family resemblance" to other
abnormal people. There need not be an identity, or perfect match, between
the behaviors of those people and the behaviors of abnormal people: so as
long as Some elements are similar, individuals might be considered abnormal
by society. Among the behaviors or elements of abnormality are:
whether the person produces discomfort in others, the degree to which his or
her behavior is unconventional, and the degree to which the behavior violates
idealized standards. If an individual's behavior triggers these criteria,
he or she may be labeled abnormal, even though other criteria of abnormality,
such as intense suffering, are absent. People who hold different views
from those of a society's leaders might be seen (or made to be seen) as unconventional,
or in violation of idealized standards. It is therefore easy to
consider them abnormal and to overlook the fact that they fail to meet any
of the other criteria for abnormality.
Beyond the political abuse that relies on the definitional ambiguities of
abnormality, the potential for abuse arises from the fact that the meanings
of abnormality change dramatically over time. For example, in DSM-II,
which was approved by the American Psychiatric Association in 1968, homosexuality
was listed as a mental disorder. But new information revealed
that as many as 10 percent of the adult population practice homosexuality.
The behavior, therefore, was no longer as unconventional as it had seemed,
nor did it violate community standards as intensely as it had earlier. Consequently,
in 1976, by a vote of its membership, the association decided that
homosexuality was no longer a mental disorder. Similarly, in 1966, the
American Association for Mental Deficiency reduced the IQ required for
designating a person "mentally retarded" from 80 to 70, thereby releasing
more than a million people from the retarded category (Bryan and Bryan,
1975). Attitudes toward work, sexuality, manners, the opposite sex, marriage;
clothing-indeed, toward most of the significant aspects of social life...
appropriate behavior and attitude are fundamental to judgments of normality
and abnormality. As these canons change, so will change our notions of
what is normal, and what is abnormal.
Potential for abuse arises also from the fact that society endows psychologists and
psychiatrists with enormous power. Perry London (1964) says they
constitute a "secular priesthood"; Thomas Szasz (1963) sees (and decries)
the rise of the "therapeutic state." But any general reservations we might
have about psychiatry and psychology often dissolve when our own lives are
touched by psychological distress. We tend to accept the views of "experts."
Our personal reliance on a practitioner, and our vulnerability to the practitioner's
judgments and recommendations, make all clients of psychiatry
and psychology particularly vulnerable to abuse. In the next section, we will
distinguish broadly between two kinds of potential abuse: abuse by state and
abuse by society.
but in various societies at various times, these profession's have been
used toward political ends. In order to confine or control individuals holding
dissident views, some political leaders have sanctioned abuses of personal
liberties in the name of psychiatry. In large part, the potential for
abuse arises from the very definition of abnormality that was discussed in
earlier.
There we suggested that whether or not people are seen as abnormal
depends on whether they possess a "family resemblance" to other
abnormal people. There need not be an identity, or perfect match, between
the behaviors of those people and the behaviors of abnormal people: so as
long as Some elements are similar, individuals might be considered abnormal
by society. Among the behaviors or elements of abnormality are:
whether the person produces discomfort in others, the degree to which his or
her behavior is unconventional, and the degree to which the behavior violates
idealized standards. If an individual's behavior triggers these criteria,
he or she may be labeled abnormal, even though other criteria of abnormality,
such as intense suffering, are absent. People who hold different views
from those of a society's leaders might be seen (or made to be seen) as unconventional,
or in violation of idealized standards. It is therefore easy to
consider them abnormal and to overlook the fact that they fail to meet any
of the other criteria for abnormality.
Beyond the political abuse that relies on the definitional ambiguities of
abnormality, the potential for abuse arises from the fact that the meanings
of abnormality change dramatically over time. For example, in DSM-II,
which was approved by the American Psychiatric Association in 1968, homosexuality
was listed as a mental disorder. But new information revealed
that as many as 10 percent of the adult population practice homosexuality.
The behavior, therefore, was no longer as unconventional as it had seemed,
nor did it violate community standards as intensely as it had earlier. Consequently,
in 1976, by a vote of its membership, the association decided that
homosexuality was no longer a mental disorder. Similarly, in 1966, the
American Association for Mental Deficiency reduced the IQ required for
designating a person "mentally retarded" from 80 to 70, thereby releasing
more than a million people from the retarded category (Bryan and Bryan,
1975). Attitudes toward work, sexuality, manners, the opposite sex, marriage;
clothing-indeed, toward most of the significant aspects of social life...
- Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 378 (1966).
appropriate behavior and attitude are fundamental to judgments of normality
and abnormality. As these canons change, so will change our notions of
what is normal, and what is abnormal.
Potential for abuse arises also from the fact that society endows psychologists and
psychiatrists with enormous power. Perry London (1964) says they
constitute a "secular priesthood"; Thomas Szasz (1963) sees (and decries)
the rise of the "therapeutic state." But any general reservations we might
have about psychiatry and psychology often dissolve when our own lives are
touched by psychological distress. We tend to accept the views of "experts."
Our personal reliance on a practitioner, and our vulnerability to the practitioner's
judgments and recommendations, make all clients of psychiatry
and psychology particularly vulnerable to abuse. In the next section, we will
distinguish broadly between two kinds of potential abuse: abuse by state and
abuse by society.