WHAT IS A NORM?

A norm is a standard or expectation that guides the behaviour of members within a society or group. It represents the "shoulds" and "should nots" of social conduct, providing a framework for acceptable and expected actions and attitudes. Norms can be explicit, such as laws or regulations, or implicit, understood social rules that aren't formally written down. Here are five examples of cultural norms:

1. Greeting Behaviour: In many Western countries, a handshake is a common greeting among strangers or acquaintances, while in Japan, bowing is the traditional form of greeting.

2. Dress Code: In many Islamic countries, women are expected to cover their heads and wear modest clothing publicly as a sign of respect and adhere to religious norms.

3. Eating Etiquette: In India, it's a norm to eat food with your right hand, as the left hand is considered unclean. Meanwhile, in East Asian cultures, chopsticks are the norm for most meals.

4. Punctuality: In countries like Germany and Switzerland, being on time for appointments and meetings is a critical cultural norm, reflecting reliability and respect. In contrast, a more relaxed attitude toward time and punctuality is the norm in some Latin American and African cultures.

5. Personal Space: In cultures like the United States and Canada, maintaining a certain amount of personal space during conversations is expected, whereas in Middle Eastern and Latin American cultures, closer physical proximity is the norm, reflecting warmth and friendliness

Deviation from social norms is a definition of abnormality where behaviour is seen as abnormal if it violates unwritten rules (social norms) about what is acceptable in a particular society.

DEVIATION FROM SOCIAL NORMS

Deviation from social norms is a concept that identifies abnormality based on society's established norms and the expected behaviours within specific contexts. Social norms are the standards of acceptable behaviour set by a social group, which members are anticipated to adhere to. These norms are crucial in maintaining societal cohesion and addressing essential social needs.

Social norms vary widely and can be formalized into explicit rules or laws, such as respecting human life and others' property. For instance, the legal system in the UK enforces such norms to maintain order and safety. However, many social norms operate implicitly, without written laws, yet are widely recognized and followed by society's members.

An everyday example of an unwritten social norm is queuing at a bus stop without pushing ahead of others. While no law mandates this behaviour, it's understood and accepted as the correct etiquette. Deviating from these accepted behaviours, whether written or unwritten, can lead to being labelled as abnormal by society.

Furthermore, social norms are often context-dependent. Behaviors acceptable in one setting may be deemed inappropriate in another. For example, eating with hands might be acceptable at a barbecue but considered abnormal in a formal restaurant. This definition of abnormality, therefore, highlights the importance of societal standards in determining what is considered normal behaviour within different contexts and situations.

EVALUATING DEVIATING FROM SOCIAL NORMS’ DEFINITION OF ABNORMALITY

*For AQA psychology students, mastering the four definitions of abnormality is essential. However, it's important to recognize that none alone would constitute a complete essay, particularly those worth 16 marks; it's unlikely that a question would focus exclusively on one definition. Instead, broader essay prompts such as “Discuss definitions of abnormality” are designed to encourage students to explore multiple definitions. This approach allows for a fuller essay response and enables students to compare and contrast the different perspectives on abnormality, providing a comprehensive overview. Preparing for these kinds of questions by understanding the strengths and limitations of each definition can help students develop well-rounded and detailed answer

DISADVANTAGES

HISTORICAL BIAS/TEMPORAL VALIDITY

A significant challenge in defining abnormal behaviour based on social norms is the evolving nature of these norms across different periods. What society deems acceptable at one point can dramatically shift, making previously normal behaviours appear deviant and vice versa. This fluidity illustrates a major drawback of relying on social norms to define abnormality: it is highly era-dependent.

For instance, the perception of homosexuality has undergone substantial changes over the years. There was a time when it was considered a social deviance and even classified as a mental disorder. However, contemporary views have shifted, and homosexuality is now widely accepted as a normal variation of human sexuality in many societies. This transformation underscores how definitions of abnormality based on social norms can become outdated, reflecting historical bias and lacking temporal validity. As societal attitudes evolve, so do the criteria for what is considered abnormal, highlighting the need for definitions of abnormality that can adapt to changing social landscapes.

POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE

Employing social norms to diagnose abnormal behaviour can lead to misuse and manipulation. A striking example of this vulnerability occurred in Russia during the late 1950s, where political dissent against government policies risked being labelled as insanity. Individuals expressing disagreement with the state could be forcibly diagnosed as mentally ill and institutionalized. This method of defining abnormality based on deviation from accepted social conduct opens the door to persecution for non-conformity.

Many significant societal advancements have originated from what was initially considered socially deviant behaviour. For instance, the suffragette movement, advocating for women's right to vote, was once viewed as a radical deviation from societal norms. Yet, it was instrumental in achieving significant social change. This highlights a critical flaw in basing abnormality on social norms: it can unjustly stigmatize and suppress necessary societal progress and the expression of individuality.

CONTEXTUAL VARIABILITY IN SOCIAL NORMS

A notable limitation of defining abnormality based on social norms is the inherent ambiguity in what constitutes acceptable behaviour, which varies significantly with context. For instance, minimal clothing at a beach is considered perfectly normal, yet the same attire might be deemed inappropriate or abnormal in an urban street setting. This exemplifies the challenge of drawing a definitive line between normal and abnormal behaviour, as the appropriateness of actions can fluctuate dramatically depending on the situation.

MAD OR ECCENTRIC? The boundary between eccentricity and madness is often nuanced and subjective, leading to significant criticism of using deviation from social norms as a criterion for diagnosing abnormality. The primary concern is the potential for unjustly labelling individuals who exhibit unconventional or non-mainstream behaviours as abnormal or mentally disordered. Eccentricity, characterized by quirky or unusual behaviour, does not inherently imply a mental disorder. Yet, this definition risks pathologizing such behaviours if they are perceived as significantly deviant from societal expectations.

The challenge is that "normality" is a fluid concept influenced by cultural, temporal, and situational contexts. What one society or era deems eccentric, another may view as completely normal or even admirable. This raises questions about the fairness and accuracy of diagnosing someone as abnormal based on their deviation from social norms, especially when such deviations do not harm the individual or others.

Moreover, this approach does not account for the rich diversity of human behaviour and the value of individualism. Prioritizing conformity potentially stifles creativity, innovation, and the rich tapestry of human expression from people following their paths rather than adhering strictly to societal expectations. In essence, distinguishing between eccentricity and madness using social norms as a guide can be highly problematic, emphasizing the need for a more nuanced understanding of abnormality that respects individual differences and the complexity of human behaviour.

One notable example of an eccentric who was also a genius, not mad, is Nikola Tesla. An inventor and electrical engineer, Tesla made groundbreaking contributions to developing alternating current electrical systems, radio, and wireless communication. Despite his profound contributions to science and technology, Tesla's unconventional behaviours and eccentricities were well-documented. He had an intense aversion to pearls, requiring his secretaries to wear gloves to handle them; he was obsessed with the number three, insisting on staying in hotel rooms divisible by three; and he had a profound love for pigeons, considering them his lifelong companions.

Tesla's lifestyle and habits were certainly unconventional and might have been deemed abnormal by the societal standards of his time. Yet, his peculiarities never hindered his intellectual capabilities or his ability to produce work that would significantly influence the world. His life exemplifies how eccentricity and genius can coexist, challenging the notion that deviation from social norms necessarily indicates madness.

CULTURAL BIAS IN DEVIATION FROM SOCIAL NORMS

Defining abnormality through deviation from social norms inherently risks cultural bias. This approach often reflects the predominant values and behaviours of the majority in Western societies, potentially pathologizing the customs and behaviours of ethnic groups that derive from different cultural backgrounds. Cochrane's (1977) research highlights this bias, showing that black individuals were more frequently diagnosed with schizophrenia compared to their white or Asian counterparts. This disparity becomes even more pronounced when considering the low rates of schizophrenia diagnosis in predominantly black countries like Jamaica, underscoring how cultural norms and values can significantly influence mental health diagnoses.

Social norms dictate acceptable behaviours and are crucial in maintaining social cohesion and addressing basic societal needs. These norms range from explicit, legally enforced rules, such as respect for life and property, to unwritten, broadly accepted behaviours, like queue etiquette at bus stops. Deviation from these accepted norms can lead to individuals being labelled as abnormal, yet what is deemed acceptable can vary dramatically across different cultural or situational contexts. For example, eating with hands is customary at barbecues but might be inappropriate in formal dining settings.

While useful for understanding how individuals conform to societal expectations, this approach to defining abnormality fails to account for the rich diversity of human cultures. It risks imposing a monolithic view of normality based on a narrow set of cultural standards, potentially misclassifying culturally specific behaviours as signs of mental disorders. Such cultural bias underscores the need for a more nuanced understanding of abnormality that appreciates cultural diversity and contextualizes behaviour within its appropriate cultural setting.

Cultural Sensitivity: While deviation from social norms can have cultural biases, it also allows for considering cultural context in diagnosing abnormality. Mental health professionals can tailor their assessments and interventions to be culturally appropriate, acknowledging that norms vary significantly across different societies.

STRENGTH OF UTILISING DEVIATION FROM SOCIAL NORMS

A significant advantage of defining abnormality through deviations from social norms is the potential for positive intervention. When applied judiciously, this approach enables society to identify individuals struggling with mental disorders who might be unable to seek help independently. Recognising when someone's behaviour significantly deviates from what is considered normal within a cultural or societal context makes it possible to provide the necessary support and treatment to improve their well-being.

Furthermore, this definition is crucial in safeguarding the community's well-being. Social norms are often established to ensure society's smooth operation and safety, but behaviours that deviate from these norms can sometimes pose risks or harm to others. Identifying and addressing these deviations helps the individual in question and contributes to maintaining social order and protecting the rights and safety of others within the community. This dual benefit underscores the utility of considering social norms in assessing and treating abnormal behaviour, highlighting its importance in individual and collective contexts.

Flexibility: The concept is flexible enough to adapt as societal norms evolve. This means that definitions of abnormality can change as society's values and beliefs shift, ensuring that the concept remains relevant and reflects current societal standards.

Inclusivity: By considering social norms in defining abnormality, a wide range of behaviours can be included that might not be captured by more rigid definitions. This inclusivity ensures a broader understanding of what constitutes abnormal behaviour, accommodating the diversity of human experiences.