The Question of Normal

This paper analyzes the distinction between “normal” and “abnormal” psychology, the traditional and historical definitions of each, and the future of this categorical view of mental health.  Questions such as who defines “normalcy” will be addressed, along with who reserves the right to label individuals as “abnormal.”  The process by which society collectively determines the status quo will be examined through the lens of Spiral Dynamics, a book by Don Beck and Christopher Cowan (1996).  The findings of twelve articles will be explored, as well as the results of a personally conducted survey.  Articles include works by such researchers as Dr. Peter Kramer (2009), Christopher Lane (2007), and Thomas S. Szasz (2006).  A personally conducted interview with local Santa Barbara psychologist, John Gadis, will conclude this investigation into “normalcy.”  Solutions to the discrimination against the mentally ill will be appraised and offered.

Keywords: normal, abnormal, mental health, mental illness, stigma, status quo.

C.S. Lewis once remarked, 

Of all the tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive . . . To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. (as cited in Szasz, 1995, p. 1)

Though Lewis referred to societal punishment, one could easily apply his words to the subject of mental health.  Should a single individual, such as a psychiatrist, really reserve the right to decide what’s best for a person?  In terms of normalcy, should the mass public really possess the faculty to collectively determine the status quo?

When it comes to mental wellness, what constitutes normality: who decides?  In the last few decades, the number of mental illness diagnoses have drastically increased - ranging from depression to personality disorders to attention deficit disorder (ADD).  The reason for this is a topic of much controversial debate; are more people really falling mentally ill, or has the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) been expanded to the point of causing mass over-diagnosis?  Indeed, even homosexuality and masturbation were once included in the DSM.

This begs the question: is extreme shyness enough to constitute avoidant personality disorder?  Does trouble concentrating really signify ADD? At what point do mood swings become bipolar disorder?  Do doctors and psychologists really deserve the capacity to change the entire perception of a person with a single diagnosis?  Perhaps the DSM needs revision once more, or perhaps the DSM is a part of the problem.  Does society really need a bold line separating normal from abnormal?  Is there even such a distinction?  Or have we, with mental illness, simply created yet another way to divide and isolate ourselves, away from each other, and away from the ever elusive status quo?

This paper will discuss the controversy surrounding the distinction between “normal” and “abnormal” psychology, the traditional and historical definitions of each, and the future of this categorical view of mental health.  I will use the concept of vMemes to create a theoretical scaffolding by which to illustrate the varying degrees of normalcy commonly expected.  Using historical examples, a personally conducted survey, and works by distinguished researchers, I will address the question of what is “normal.”

Ever since the dawn of humanity, there have been social norms.  Don Beck and Christopher Cowan (1996) described it best with their concept of vMemes (short for values-attracting meta-memes).  A social vMeme is a schema through which we interpret the world; a paradigm that orients us to changing life conditions.  Organized by color-coding, each vMeme has an entering phase, a peak, and a declining phase, all influenced by situational variables.  Social vMemes influence people’s beliefs, goals, motivation patterns, social groupings, and organizational dynamics.  A person may rely upon different vMemes for different social scenarios.  For instance, the environment of a high school football game may require the use of the RED PowerGods vMeme (“Raw power displays, immediate pleasure, unrestrained by guilt, egocentric and tough”), whereas an intimate relationship may call for use of the BLUE TruthForce vMeme (“only one right way, purpose in causes, guilt and consequences, sacrifice for honor”) (Beck & Cowan, 1994).  Similarly, a person may operate from the GREEN HumanBond vMeme (“seeks inner peace, everybody is equal, harmony in the group”) in their close friendships, from the BLUE TruthForce vMeme in their religious affiliations, and the ORANGE StriveDrive vMeme (competes to win, goal-oriented, material gains”) in their business.  Thus, like stages of evolution, an individual will have access to a range of vMemes -- their most complex developed vMeme in addition to all vMemes leading up to it.  There are eight vMemes arranged in a Spiral, ranging from BEIGE (Semi-Stone Age) to TURQUOISE (GlobalView).  Our society currently operates from a number of vMemes.  The ORANGE StriveDrive vMeme can be found on Wall Street, the BLUE TruthForce vMeme is identifiable in religious fundamentalists, and the RED PowerGods vMeme is readily apparent in this country’s military activity.

According to Beck and Cowan, “the vMeme cluster of a particular individual or organization may exist in a narrow band, so closed that anyone whose thinking lies elsewhere on the Spiral is demonized as either criminal or insane” (p. 4).  However, if a number of vMemes exist in society simultaneously, such an observation leads us to an unsettling conclusion: if each vMeme has its own defined set of social norms, and multiple vMemes simultaneously coexist, then the range of behavior that is considered “abnormal” must be considerably significant.  Moreover, if “normal” behavior depends entirely upon which vMeme an individual is currently operating from, then the concept of “abnormal” must be created solely by circumstantial social consensus.

History provides us with several examples of such social stratification.  According to the Galileo Project (2003), in the early16th century, Galileo was denounced to the Roman Inquisition for his beliefs in a heliocentric universe.  Because his views were considered contrary to the Catholic scripture, he was deemed “abnormal,” initially warned, and finally forced to recant.  He was ultimately placed under house arrest until his death in 1642 (The Galileo Project, 2003, para. 1).

As documented by Douglas Linder, from 1692 to 1693, hundreds of men and women were tried for witchcraft in Colonial Massachusetts (Linder, n.d.).  Known historically as the Salem Witch Trials, it began with a single potential case of "convulsive ergotism,” quickly escalating into a full blown hysteria (Linder, n.d., para. 5).  The social norms of the era did not support concepts of “mental illness,” but rather condemned such “abnormal” behaviors as the practice of devil worship.  Thus, nineteen men and women, convicted of witchcraft, were hanged on Gallows Hill, near Salem Village (Linder, n.d., para. 1).  One man was even crushed to death by heavy stones for refusing to submit to a trial (Linder, n.d. para. 1).

Another prime example is described by The John F. Kennedy Presidential Library in the tragic story of Rosemary Kennedy.  Born in 1918 as Rose Marie Kennedy, the eldest daughter of Joseph and Rose, Rosemary displayed “abnormal” rates of development in her early years.  By the age of 22, she was reported to have had “violent mood swings” and an increasingly irritable disposition (“Rosemary,” n.d.).  Just one year later, she was forced to undergo a relatively new procedure doctors said would cure her of such undesirable behavior.  Authorized by her father, Joseph Kennedy, at age 23, Rosemary underwent a lobotomy, which consists of severing the connections to and from the prefrontal cortex, usually with a long, thin, pointed object (similar to an icepick) inserted through the eye cavity.  The lobotomy left Rosemary incontinent, “permanently incapacitated and unable to care for herself (“Rosemary,” n.d.).  Consequently, she was institutionalized at St. Coletta’s School for Exceptional Children, in Jefferson, Wisconsin, where she remained until her death in 2005.  She was 86.

Fortunately, such extreme measures are not commonly taken today.  However, one could argue that involuntary institutionalization and Electroconvulsive therapy are “treatments” not entirely distant from such historical cruelty.  As Albert Einstein said, “a perfection of means, and a confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem.”  In modern societies, most “abnormal” behavior is cataloged under the vast umbrella of “mental illness.”  Thanks to numerous revisions of the DSM, nearly all deviant behavior is now categorized by syndrome, disorder, or dysfunction.  How has such accord been reached, one might wonder?  Through mass social consensus and a heavy reliance upon the status quo.

In order to gain a more comprehensive idea of the public opinion regarding the question of “normal,” I created and conducted a survey consisting of 10 questions about mental illness.  I began brainstorming questions on October 27th, and finalized my questions November 9th.  Using SurveyMonkey.com, I collected responses from 40 people between the ages of 18 and 60, selected at random from Twitter, Facebook, acquaintances, and family friends.  I began receiving responses on Wednesday, November 4th, and closed my survey Thursday, November 19th.  After quantifying my data, I wrote my methodology paragraph Friday, November 20th, 2009.

According to my results, a surprising 92.5% of the people polled personally knew someone who had been diagnosed with a mental illness.  When asked if they believed that a person diagnosed with a mental disorder could still be a productive member of society, only 10% strongly disagreed; 40% of participants agreed with the statement, and an unexpected 50% strongly agreed.  Regardless, 22.5% of people admitted that the mentally ill made them uncomfortable, while 77.5% maintained the opposite position.  Only 5% of the people surveyed believed that the mentally ill should be segregated from “normal” society.  Although 26% of Americans are currently diagnosed with a mental disorder, according to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), when asked to guess this percentage, only 47.5% guessed correctly (NIMH, 2008).  Another 40% of participants guessed 46%, which is the percentage of the population that will be diagnosed with a mental disorder in their lifetime (NIMH, 2008).  A mere 7.5% felt that taking psychiatric medications defines a person as mentally ill, whilst the other 92.5% disagreed.  Interestingly enough, 48.7% of people polled believed that a mental disorder is a physical illness.  When allowed to make multiple choices, 52.5% of the group surveyed believed medication to be the best treatment for mental illness.  Psychotherapy came in a close second at 50%, with a surprising 37.5% for social acceptance.  Curiously, institutionalization was chosen by only 5%.  Finally, given the choice between having a child with a mental disorder or having a child of a different sexual orientation, only 10.3% of people were willing to have a child with a mental illness.  A shocking 43.6% chose having a child with a different sexual orientation, while an indifferent 46.2% chose “either” (see appendix I).

Judging by these findings alone, the “public” is much more aware of mental illness than I initially suspected.  Most people surveyed seemed to have a very progressive attitude toward the mentally ill, perceiving them to be (almost) equals.  However, if the 40 people I surveyed are legitimately representative of the overall population, then why are the mentally ill still so stigmatized?  Despite my efforts of random selection, it appears, when compared to my research, my group of 40 participants were in fact the exception rather than the rule.

A more common view of mental health is well illustrated by psychiatrist Sally Satel (2009) in her article “To Fight Stigmas, Start With Treatment.” Satel wrote about how comprehensive treatment and subsequent societal success is the best way to resolve stigma toward the mentally ill. Her article examined the British television show, “How Mad Are You?”, the objective of which was for a group of psychiatrists to distinguish five people with mental disorders from a group of ten, the point being that appearance alone is not enough to determine mental illness.  Only two of the mentally ill participants were properly identified, proving that even trained professionals cannot reliably identify mental disorders by appearance alone.  Although this program was highly praised for encouraging viewers to “re-examine their preconceptions” (p. 2), Satel, criticized the show, asking “what would re-examination yield?  The belief that people with serious mental illness are no different from everyone else?  I hope not.”

Satel went on to acknowledge other anti-stigma campaigns, but only insofar as they fail to abolish mental illness.  According to her, only treatment and subsequent success in society can diminish stigma.  Finally, and rather subjectively, Satel suggested that altering the public’s view of mental illness depends entirely upon the successful treatment of the symptoms that set the mentally ill apart from the status quo.  In Satel’s opinion, “treatment [is] the most effective destigmatizing force there is” (p. 2).

A more positive view of mental illness is offered by Martin Gayford (2005) in his article “Society Should Recognize Mental Illness as a Source of Creativity.”  Having begun by recounting the tragic suicide of architect Francesco Borromini, who’s architecture was thought to be “too original for the age or reason” (p. 91), Gayford went on to mention the tragic lives and deaths of such artists as Vincent van Gogh and Virginia Woolf.  He asked: could there have been “a relation between [their] mental peculiarities and [their] imaginative achievements?” (p. 85).  He quoted poet John Dryden in saying “Great wits are sure to madness near allied/And thin partitions do their bounds divide.”  He mentioned the plights of composer Hugo Wolf and poet William Cowper, who were plagued by bipolar disorder and depression respectively.  Gayford asserted that artists affected by mental illness have the capacity to feel more than most of us, allowing them the enhanced intensity of experience that can lead to creativity.  He included Plato’s position that poets are inspired by “divine fury” and Aristotle’s assertion that poets, philosophers, and artists tend to be “melancholic” (p. 85).  Gayford observed that mental illness is neither necessary nor sufficient for creativity (p. 91), however, by having cited numerous historical examples of renowned artists who were, in fact, mentally ill, he proved the existence of a connection indeed.  Though Gayford failed to insist upon the acceptability - daresay normalcy - of such uncustomary inspiration, he adeptly illustrated one walk of life where mental “instability” is actually accepted and perhaps desired.  In the field of creativity, could mental illness actually be closer to the norm?

Dr. Peter Kramer (2009) furthered the discussion of normality with his article, “What is Normal?”  Right away, Kramer stated that “diagnostic labels are proliferating, and mental disorders seem to be annexing ever more territory.”  He even acknowledged psychiatry’s “narrowing of the normal,” agreeing that doctors abuse their degree-granted privilege to define normality (p. 76).  He reinforced the report given by The National Institute of Mental Health that in a given year, over a quarter of Americans are diagnosed with a mental illness, while over a lifetime that number climbs to nearly half (p. 76).  “To constrain normality is to induce conformity,” he warned, admitting that “the fate of normality is very much in the balance.” (p. 76).  Having acknowledged the failure of doctors to recognize individuality, Kramer introduced the concept of “cosmetic psychoparmacology,” the current practice by psychiatrists of moving a person from one “normal” yet disfavored personality state, to another “normal” yet rewarded state -- such as the transition from humility to self-assertion (p. 76).  In such a way, even “normal” behaviors are being treated for their undesirability.  Kramer discussed the current unreliable methods of diagnosis, suggesting that time may “push” this categorical model of mental health aside (p. 78).  According to Kramer, if a divergence from the “norm” “confers some degree of vulnerability to dysfunction,” then we may all find ourselves “defective in one fashion or another” (p. 78).

The article “Am i NoRmaL?” by A. Paul (2005) is an interesting addendum to this concept.  From Paul’s perspective, “what we call mental illness might once have had, and may still serve, highly adaptive functions” (para. 5).  Paul (2005) introduced the notion that what we refer to as personality disorders are simply a series of traits in extreme - traits we all have to some extent.  He suggested that “human nature can be refracted through personality traits” (para. 4), and that dysfunctional personalities aren’t as rare as once thought - affecting as many as one person in seven.  He discussed the difference between personality types and personality disorders, concluding that the distinction lies mainly in the extremity of traits. 

He noted that “many psychologists are shifting from the old you-have-it-or-you-don’t perspective on personality disorders (the ‘categorical’ model) to the more nuanced ‘dimensional’ model” (para. 10).  In this new model, personality exists along a continuum with healthy traits on one end, and disordered traits on the other -- with “innumerable gradations in between” (para. 10).  Paul pointed out that the line dividing “normal” and “abnormal” has become far less important, and in some cases, even ignored by proponents of this new dimensional model.  Paul contended that “context is everything” (para. 15), proposing that many of the behaviors belonging to personality disorders are actually adaptations once needed for survival.  He noted, “that personality disorders once had their uses could explain why they are so prevalent today” (para. 22).  Paul likened personality disorder treatment to that of a carpenter removing rough edges, adding that “the goal is to turn a personality disorder into a personality style--to help the personality-disordered patient become a functioning, healthy human being, with quirks and idiosyncrasies intact” (para. 30). “A person,” he concluded, “that is, a lot like you and me” (para. 30).

In “Shyness: How Normal Behavior Became a Sickness,” Christopher Lane (2007) outlined the ways in which shyness has, over the past couple of decades, progressed clinically from a “normal” behavior into an “illness” of pandemic proportions.  He began by discussing the overwhelmingly large number of Americans now said to be affected by a “social phobia” or “social anxiety” (para. 2).  Having explored data collected by Psychology Today, he confirmed that 18.7% of Americans currently suffer from a shyness-related disorder (para. 12).  Lane noted that one reason for this is that psychiatrists require a “very low burden of proof” for their diagnoses (para. 4).  Lane compared the pandemic of shyness to that of depression, signifying that the former is the “third-most-common psychiatry disorder behind only depressive disorder and alcohol dependence” (para. 12).  He considered the process by which the DSM “assumed global authority” (para. 6), noting its method of “tackling a vast array of human experience, the[n] drain[ing] it of complexity and boil[ing] it down to blunt assertions that daily determine the fate of millions” (para. 6).  Lane’s position is clear: “some shyness is expected in everyone” (para. 9).  As lamented to Lane by a psychoanalyst, “we used to have a word for sufferers of ADHD.  We called them boys” (para. 7).

In “Psychopathology: A Simple Twist of Fate or a Meaningful Distortion of Normal Development? Toward an Etiologically Based Alternative for the DSM Approach,” Professor Patrick Luyten (2006) discussed the assumptions behind the DSM, noting that “over the past decades, empirical studies have consistently failed to validate almost all of the major assumptions underlying the DSM approach” (p. 523).  Though some argue for DSM reform, others, such as Luyten, call for a fundamental change in the approach itself.  Luyten outlined the current assumptions underlying the DSM, including the initial assertion that “Disorders are categorically distinct from subclinical disorders and from normality” (p. 523).  Much like Paul, Luyten asserted that “empirical research does not support a categorical view for most disorders” (p. 524).  Instead, he argued, most disorders tend to be situated along a continuum (p. 524).  This is made evident by the overwhelming number of individuals treated for personality problems that could not be officially diagnosed by the DSM.  Luyten also explored the high rates of comorbidity, disproving the DSM’s rule that “Symptom disorders (coded on Axis I) are independent from personality disorders (coded on Axis II)” (p. 523).  Luyten noted that the DSM’s “over-reliance on [only] manifest symptoms” has resulted in “poor validity” of diagnosis (p. 525).  “The almost exclusive focus on symptoms in the DSM has also led to a preoccupation with symptom relief as the major expression and measure of the efficacy and effectiveness of treatment strategies,” he continued (p. 525). 

Luyten (2006) analyzed Sidney Blatt’s view that “psychological disorders should be seen as the result of various distortions of the normal dialectic interaction between the development of self-definition and relatedness” (p. 526).  In other words, that psychological disorders stem from an inaccurately developed perception of one’s relationship between oneself and others.  According to Blatt (2004), both underlying vulnerabilities and cognitive-affective schemas should be considered in both assessment and treatment.  Blatt proposed that we begin treating individuals rather than disorders, taking care not to neglect the biopsychosocial factors potentially involved.  For example, a “disorder” could be the result of adapted behavior used to defend against underlying emotions from childhood.  Finally, Luyten noted that “Blatt’s views clearly suggest that the disease metaphor is inadequate for most, if not all, mental disorders” (p. 531).  Blatt purported that individuals should not be viewed as “hosts” to certain “pathogens,” but rather as active contributors to the creation and persistence of their existing stressors (p. 531).  In conclusion, Luyten stated that “psychopathology should not be seen as a ‘simple twist of fate’. . . . but as the outcome of a complex interaction between vulnerability and resilience throughout life associated with two fundamental dimensions of human existence, self-definition, and relatedness and thus a possibility that resides in us all” (p. 533).

Dr. Thomas S. Szasz (2006) advances this notion of remembering the individual’s contribution to the disorder afflicting them.  In “Mental Illness: Sickness or Status?” he  contended that “the term ‘mental illness’ refers to unwanted behavior, not medical malady” (para. 1).  In short, that there is no such thing as mental illness at all.  In his position, “it is as foolish to look for the causes or cures of the behaviors we call ‘mental illnesses’ as it would be to look for the causes and cures of the behaviors we call ‘religions’” (para. 11).

Szasz’s article “Mental Illness is Still a Myth” (1995) took this concept further.  Playing off the title of his earlier book, The Myth of Mental Illness, published in 1961, Szasz’s main argument revolved around his position that the term “mental illness” is, in fact, a metaphor.  From his view, “if mental illnesses are diseases of the central nervous system, then they are diseases of the brain, not the mind; and if they are the names of (mis)behaviors, then they are not diseases” (para. 8).  Szasz compared the metaphor of mental illness to the metaphor of the drink called a screwdriver, stating that “a screwdriver may be a drink or an implement.  No amount of research on orange juice and vodka can establish that it is a hitherto unrecognized form of a carpenter’s tool” (para. 8).  Szasz (1995) also compared mental illness to religion, suggesting that “psychiatric metaphors play the same role in therapeutic societies as religious metaphors play in theological societies” (para. 9).  Having assailed religion, he added, “religion is the denial of the human foundations of meaning and the finitude of life. . . . similarly, psychiatry is the denial of the reality of free will and of the tragic nature of life” (para. 10).  In Szasz’s opinion, “both religion and psychiatry are the products of our own minds.  Hence, the mind is its own opiate; and its ultimate drug is the word” (para. 10).

To Szasz, what we call “mental illness” is actually a name for problems in living.  His article “The Myth of Mental Illness” that proceeded his book of the same name, explained it best.  In it, Szasz (1960) noted that we regard mental disorders as the cause of human disharmony when, in fact, “living is an arduous process” (para. 6).  Not far from the conception of vMemes, Szasz suggested that “the concept of illness, whether bodily or mental, implies deviation from some clearly defined norm” (para. 7).  “Who defines the norms and hence the deviation?” (para. 8).  According to Szasz, it may be the individual who determines that they deviate from a given norm, or someone other than the individual who decides that the latter is deviant (para. 8).  Either way, Szasz recapitulated by stating, “in actual contemporary social usage, the finding of a mental illness is made by establishing a deviance in behavior from certain psychosocial, ethical, or legal norms” (para. 10).  Thus, it becomes clear that a psychiatrist’s socioethical orientation will heavily influence their ideas of what is wrong with a patient (para. 12). 

Ultimately, Szasz (1960) considered what people call mental illnesses to be nothing more than “communications expressing unacceptable ideas” (para. 15).  Essentially, that “instead of calling attention to conflicting human needs, aspirations, and values, the notion of mental illness provides an amoral and impersonal ‘thing’ (an ‘illness’) as an explanation for problems in living” (para. 17).  Having referenced historical myths, Szasz concluded that “our adversaries are not demons, witches, fate, or mental illness.  We have no enemy whom we can fight, exorcise, or dispel by ‘cure’” (para. 24).  We have only “normal” people in a continuous struggle, “not for biological survival, but for a ‘place in the sun,’ ‘peace of mind,’ or some other human value (para. 22).

Unfortunately, the evolution required to move from a view such as Satel’s (2009) to a position like Szasz’s (2006) is considerable.  Most people find it far easier to keep normality contained in the neat, categorized box in which it came.  For such spectators of life, an example far more lucid exists for their perusal.  The critically acclaimed 1976 film One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, originally a book of the same name by Ken Kesey (1962), illustrated the question of normal quite perfectly.  The film documented the hero’s journey of Randle Patrick McMurphy, a man convicted of statutory rape and sentenced to a relatively short prison term who decided to pretend to be “mad” in order to receive what he believed to be the lesser punishment of institutionalization.  His plan rapidly backfired, however, as he made a quick enemy of the head nurse, Ratched, and learned that many of the other patients were actually there voluntarily.  The situation escalated as McMurphy defied the rules and attempted to liberate the other patients of their perceived problems, until ultimately, McMurphy is punished for his “abnormal” behavior.  First with electroconvulsive therapy, and finally by way of a lobotomy that left him totally incapacitated, McMurphy’s deviance was silenced.  The film raised a pertinent question: what exactly is mental illness?  McMurphy, “normal” at the film’s commencement, is reduced to yet another mental patient by the film’s end, by way of what psychiatrists call a “self-fulfilling prophesy.”  The story caused viewers to wonder, what is responsible for mental illness, the patient themselves, or their environment?  As the tagline for the film adeptly states, “If he’s crazy, what does that make you?”

In an attempt to further understand the mental health industry from a professional standpoint, I decided to interview a current mental health practitioner.  I chose for this interview psychologist John Gadis, who works currently for Sanctuary Psychiatric Services of Santa Barbara.  Gadis has been working in the mental health arena for over 30 years, having gotten his start in the 70s working with alcoholics, and subsequently, locked-down teens.  He worked for 5 years with the developmentally disabled at Devereaux before becoming directly involved with the mentally ill in the late 80s.  When asked his thoughts on societal terms such as “developmentally challenged,” or “mentally ill,” he responded immediately, saying, “these are labels which can sometimes imply defectiveness because they illicit comparisons with what we deem is normal, but they’re just who they are” (J. Gadis, personal communication, November 6, 2009).  After asking him what he thinks is normal, he replied: “I think normal in our culture is defined through a coupled lens; there is the lens connected with a person’s ability to perform or be competent at certain tasks such as independent living, making one’s way in the world. [And] there’s also a lens in terms of a person’s ability to get along with other people, their emotional IQ. Then there is a person’s ability to be successful in terms of our definition of success” (J. Gadis, personal communication, November 6, 2009).  Gadis went on to mention the social consensus referenced by so many of my chosen researchers, stating, “there’s a consensual reality which is defined a lot by the prevailing values of our culture, which is very materialistic and quite immature in terms of its tolerance for people who are different compared to other cultures where upward mobility, money, and status are not as highly held values” (J. Gadis, personal communication, November 6, 2009).  In his opinion, the media is largely to blame for the youth’s perception of what is normal or not.  Education and corporations also play a major role in shaping people’s biases, in addition to the prevailing political or socioeconomic standards of the time (J. Gadis, personal communication, November 6, 2009). 

According to Gadis, “mental illness is a description that builds around labeling certain kinds of behaviors that the average person--whoever or whatever that is--could find either disruptive, or different from what they think is right in a given situation” (J. Gadis, personal communication, November 6, 2009).  “Now being labeled as different is one thing,” Gadis continued, “but being labeled as bad...because one is different is another thing.  So it all depends on what people view as different versus deviant versus dangerous” (J. Gadis, personal communication, November 6, 2009).  Gadis contended that the context of the situation is highly significant, suggesting that normality is “pretty much culturally defined.  And culture is informed by our prevailing social values and norms which is in turn influenced by corporations and media” (J. Gadis, personal communication, November 6, 2009).  Gadis talked about optimal brain functioning, observing that it varies from culture to culture.  He also mentioned the phenomenon of savant syndrome, where the healthy right hemisphere of the brain compensates for the malfunctioning or damaged left hemisphere.  Ultimately, Gadis believed that “people are able to make do with whatever limitations they have and still be very successful” (J. Gadis, personal communication, November 6, 2009).

When asked what he would like to see in the future of the mental health industry, Gadis zeroed in on the lack of accommodations provided for the mentally ill in the educational system and corporate environments.  When asked to elaborate on what kind of accommodations, he replied, “for example, more time to take tests.  It would all depend on what the symptoms or behaviors are--to work with those as much as possible, in a way that gives a person dignity rather than banishing or marginalizing them” (J. Gadis, personal communication, November 6, 2009).  Essentially, Gadis proposed that the process of receiving accommodations is an idea that is “supposed to be empowering,” not stigmatizing (J. Gadis, personal communication, November 6, 2009).  “What we’re really talking about here, is prejudice,” he concluded, “and how to erode the underpinnings of that in ways that are natural and don’t make it an even bigger issue than it already is” (J. Gadis, personal communication, November 6, 2009).

In a speech given at the Sorbonne in Paris, Theodore Roosevelt (1910) eloquently stated,

It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better.  The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat. (Roosevelt, 1910, para. 9)

In echo of this great tradition, I will attempt to step into the arena of social change myself.  For if I leave it to another, then I am falling into the same trap of complacent social consensus that I hold so critically.  The admission I am about to make, may change things for me, but I would rather put myself on trial as a proponent for change than spend my life forever in silence.

Technically, I am mentally ill.  How it came about is unimportant, though I imagine it is an interesting tale.  What matters is that three years ago, after I returned home from my first year at New York University, I was diagnosed with “agitated depression” and an “adjustment disorder.”  Each year since has arrived with new diagnoses, adding to my repertoire panic disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, attention deficit disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and a potential diagnosis of the personality disorder, Borderline.  For three years, I self-fulfilled the prophesies I was given, buying into my “sick role” without resistance.  It took an amazing psychologist and months of intense self-reflection to reassume my position of strength in society.  Ironically, what I was fighting against was not my “illnesses,” but rather the perception that such afflictions rendered me somehow inadequate, incapable, or “abnormal.”  Unfortunately, that was not the end of my battle, but the beginning.

I have long been aware of society’s unyielding perception of those falling outside the status quo.  In my life, I have walked both sides of the line dividing “normal” from “abnormal,” belonging to both groups, at one time or another.  What I have learned, is that there is no “normal”: this elusive status quo is nonexistent.  Everyone has problems, and no two people are alike, except when under the extreme social pressure to conform.  Where are we without this social divide, one might ask?  We are all the same in our differences, it can be stated as simply as that.

And yet, society is like a living mechanism, and people divide and categorize in order to survive.  In the tradition of vMemes, people see only what they want to see, and act from such subjectivity without question.  This disparity of power is what ruins us, this control of the socially meek by the socially dominant has been the object of revolt for centuries.  How can such injustice be corrected?  Only through education, the reformation of ideals, and the overall acceptance of differences.

I have long been the object of discrimination for my differences.  Though I am adept at hiding behind an acceptable social mask of “normalcy,” on the occasions my true face has shown through, I have been marginalized for it: in my experience, society is neither comfortable with, nor prepared for mental illness.  Though strongly encouraged to reach out for help at any time, at NYU, I was put on hold when calling the Wellness Exchange crisis hotline.  A friend of mine who stopped by the Wellness Exchange unannounced when feeling suicidal, was told to come back during business hours.  Once at Santa Barbara City College, rather than being provided with accommodations for my anxiety, I was told to first go to Disabled Student Programs and Services (DSPS) in order for them to officially determine my “disability.”  Finally, I chose to attend Antioch University Santa Barbara, where I at last found a school with a progressive attitude and requirements of neither grades nor testing.  Nevertheless, even a school of social change, such as Antioch, has a ways to go.

Though enthused by their broad-minded outlook, at Antioch I still encountered resistance when attempting to depart from the “norm.”  Since Antioch lacks mandatory testing, extensive class participation is required in its stead.  And yet, a class which expects students to “jump in” and comment on the material at random is a perfect hell for a student with social anxiety.  Faced with no other option, I have adopted my social mask of “normalcy” and participated with a pounding heart, waves of nausea, and words nervously ineloquent thanks to my rampant social anxiety.  However, my success in such circumstances is tainted by the fact that I could not simply be my silent, introspective self.  Additionally, my heart goes out to students who are unable to force themselves to perform under such circumstances: what must such participatory expectations be like for them?  Why is there such social accord that silence must automatically indicate stupidity or the lack of something interesting to say?  Such “listeners” I have known prefer silence to talking, yet are brimming with wisdom and ideas.  Is such knowledge not apparent through written assignments or teacher conferences?  Why must a student speak up in order to be noticed?  Isn’t this yet another example of conformation required for success?

From a progressive institution, such as Antioch, I imagine something better: a school that lives up to its proclamations of diversity, acceptance, and social change.  Essentially, a college that recognizes success in all its forms, both silent and loud.  Antioch asks its students to “claim their education,” to make their path of learning all their own.  This is my humble attempt at claiming mine. 

Without recognition and accommodations, the future of mental health is a bleak one.  Those affected by mental illness face a double challenge: the challenge of withstanding their own psychological demons, coupled with the challenge of surviving in a society where they have to pretend in order to succeed.  Conformity should be expected of no one, least of all those who are biologically and psychologically distinct from society’s “norm.”  If no solution is enacted, the world will continue spinning just like it always has.  And yet, we will have missed an incredible opportunity to make a difference.  Alone, our voices may not be heard, but together, our chorus for change can move mountains.  It is my hope that my voice raised alone will still be heard.  If my story can make a difference, then perhaps my struggles will have been worth it.  When it comes to normalcy, society will not be healthy until we have transcended the concept of “normal” altogether.

Beck, D., & Cowan, C. (1996). Spiral Dynamics. Massachusetts: Backwell Publishing.

Beck, D., & Cowan, C. (1997). Proceedings of Spiral Dynamics ’97. Denton, TX: The National Values Center, Inc.

Biographies and Profiles: Rosemary Kennedy. (n.d.) Retrieved from The John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Biographies+and+Profiles/Biographies/Biography+of+Rosemary+Kennedy.htm

Lane, Christopher. (2007, November) Shyness: How Normal Behavior Became a Sickness. Book excerpt. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com

Forman, Milos (Director). (1976). One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest [Motion picture]. United States: Fantasy Films.

Kramer, Peter D. M.D.. (2009). Are You Normal? Psychology Today. November/December.

Linder, Douglass. (n.d.). The Witchcraft Trials in Salem: A Commentary. Retrieved from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/SAL_ACCT.HTM

Luyten, Patrick. (2006). Psychopathology: A Simple Twist of Fate or a Meaningful Distortion of Normal Development? Toward an Etiologically Based Alternative for the DSM Approach. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 26(4), 521-535. http://proxy.antioch.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=pbh&AN=31402755&site=ehost-live

National Institute of Mental Health. The Numbers Count: Mental Disorders in America 2008 [Data File]. Retrieved from http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml

Paul, A. (2005). Am i NoRmaL?. Psychology Today, 38(2), 54-60. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.antioch.edu

Roosevelt, Theodore. (1910). Citizenship in a Republic. [speech at the Sorbonne, Paris]. The Works of Theodore Roosevelt, Vol XIII, pp. 506-529. Retrieved from http://www.leadershipnow.com/tr-citizenship.html

Satel, Sally. (2009). To Fight Stigmas, Start With Treatment. [Science Desk]. New York Times (Late Edition (east Coast)), p. D.6. Retrieved from New York Times. Document ID: 1682535441.

Szasz, Thomas S. (1960). The Myth of Mental Illness. American Psychologist, 15, 113-118.

Szasz, Thomas S. (1994). Mental Illness is Still A Myth. Society, 31(4), 34-39. doi: 10.1007/BF02693245

Szasz, Thomas S. (2006, July/August). Mental Illness: Sickness or Status?. The Freeman, 56: 25-26. Retrieved from http://www.szasz.com/iol10.html

The Galileo Project. (2003). Galileo’s Biography: Galileo and the Inquisition. Retrieved from http://galileo.rice.edu/bio/narrative_7.html