Untitled Flashcards Set

e term ‘psychopathology’ is derived from the words ‘psyche’ , meaning mind or soul, and ‘pathology’ , meaning disease or illness. In essence, then, the term may be understood as referring to the study of mind illnesses or psychological disorders. But how do we define what should be called an illness or pathology of the mind? Defining psychopathology In order to make a decision about what should be termed a psychological disorder, we need to establish defining criteria that separate disorders from normal behaviour. Statistical deviance One way of defining psychopathology is to use statistical norms of behaviour and experience to determine what is supposedly normal. Here, anything that falls far from the norm would be deemed abnormal. From this point of view, some behaviours that are relatively rare (e.g. talking to oneself in public) or behaviours that deviate from cultural norms (e.g. public nudity, or hallucinations such as hearing voices that do not exist) are seen as abnormal or as a sign of mental illness. e problem with this definition, however, is that the norm, or what is considered normal behaviour, would depend on our cultural or social perspective. For instance, hearing voices and some forms of public nudity are not considered abnormal behaviours in many African cultures and play an important role in giving cultural meaning to particular life events. Furthermore, what might be considered normal may not always be considered healthy or appropriate behaviour. Racist attitudes are often the norm in many societies, but it would be incorrect to view these as acceptable. In other words, abnormality and statistical deviance cannot always be equated, and the context in which the individual lives needs consideration. Taking this into account, a more accurate way of understanding deviance is the extent to which cultural norms or ideological perspectives are breached. However, even within a particular cultural context, equating deviance with abnormality is problematic. is is because such a criterion fails to distinguish between positive and negative behaviours that deviate from the norm. For example, deviations from the norm may be due to characteristics such as eccentricity, genius or some form of outstanding achievement. ese could hardly be viewed as inappropriate or pathological. Maladaptiveness e extent to which certain behaviours or experiences are maladaptive to the self or others is also used as a means of defining psychopathology. Here, behaviours that appear to prevent the individual from adapting or adjusting for the good of the individual or group are defined as abnormal. e maladaptiveness criterion is based on the assumption that individuals should change and adapt for the good of the self and to ensure the survival of the individual and the broader community. Common signs of psychopathology such as suicide, depression and fatigue would fit this criterion because they stand in the way of the individual’s personal growth and actualisation. In a similar way to the criterion of statistical deviance, maladaptiveness is also relative to the particular cultural perspective within which it is being examined. Many West African countries, for instance, still participate in female circumcision ceremonies, a practice viewed by many as abnormal and barbaric. However, from within some of these cultures such practices are viewed as adaptive and are practised for the purpose of instilling cultural beliefs about sexual reproduction and sexuality in their people. In other words, female circumcision is not viewed as abnormal by many individuals within that culture. One of the main problems with the criterion of maladaptiveness, and also with statistical deviance, is that both these criteria attempt to assess abnormality from a position outside of the individual’s own experience of the apparent problem. is has led to many researchers instead considering the criterion of personal distress as an indicator of psychopathology. Table 24.1 Some myths about mental illness Myth Abnormal behaviour is odd and bizarre. Fact The behaviour of mental patients is most often indistinguishable from that of normal persons. Myth Mental patients are unpredictable and dangerous. Mental disorders are caused by fundamental mental de ciencies and are therefore shameful. Abnormal and normal behaviour are different in kind. Fact A typical mental patient is no more dangerous than a normal person. Everyone shares the potential for becoming disordered and behaving abnormally. Few, if any, abnormal behaviours are unique to mental patients. Abnormality usually occurs when there is a poor t between behaviour and the situation in which it is enacted. Personal distress Suffering often accompanies psychological disorders. In cases where anxiety and depression are the prominent symptoms, people often struggle with unbearable negative thoughts about themselves and their world. In these cases it is fitting that personal distress is associated with what constitutes a mental disorder. But once again there are exceptions. Individuals who suffer from antisocial personality disorder (APD) often do not feel appropriate forms of distress. Individuals with APD are likely to find pleasure in inflicting pain on others and they are often violent and abusive in their relationships with others. erefore, if we only applied the criterion of personal distress to such cases, they would not be viewed as being abnormal. is would obviously be incorrect. In addition to this, if personal distress is a criterion of abnormality, this also implies that all personal distress is inappropriate or unhealthy. is is clearly not the case. Distress is often a normal response to difficult or dangerous situations. For example, we would expect an individual to endure an immense amount of personal distress if they were to lose a loved one. is, however, is clearly a healthy response to the situation where distress is an important part of bereavement and the mourning process. As has been shown in using the criteria of statistical deviance, maladaptiveness and personal distress, there is no clear-cut answer to the problem of what is normal and what is not. is is an ongoing problem in the field of psychology, and is reflected in how the boundaries of what constitutes normality have shifted throughout history. In addition, broader political and sociocultural forces have been shown to have an important impact on how we view mental or psychological disorders. Homosexuality, for instance, used to be a diagnosable mental disorder in many parts of the world. However, since 1973 homosexuality has no longer been regarded as a mental disorder because there were no clear links to be found between mental disorders, abnormality and homosexuality. SUMMARY •    Psychopathology is the study of mind illnesses or psychological disorders. •    There are three widely used criteria for distinguishing disorders from normal behaviour: »    Statistical deviance asks how much the behaviour differs from normal behaviour. However, what is considered normal is culturally dened. Also, some statistically normal behaviour may not be considered healthy or appropriate. In addition, eccentricity and genius are also abnormal. »    Maladaptiveness considers how harmful the behaviour is to the person and to others. However, some behaviours may be viewed as maladaptive in certain cultures but not in others. »    Like statistical deviance, the maladaptiveness criterion takes an objective (rather than a subjective) view. Hence, the criterion of personal distress was included. However, some people with abnormal behaviour feel no such distress, for example when harming others. Also, not all personal distress is abnormal. 24.1 PRACTICES OF XHOSA-SPEAKING TRADITIONAL HEALERS IN MANAGING PSYCHOSIS Based on information from Mzimkulu and Simbayi (2006) Aim The study aimed to investigate how amagquira (traditional healers) managed psychosis. Method The authors interviewed four traditional healers chosen because they were associated with patients receiving treatment for psychosis in a Cape Town psychiatric hospital. Findings Using thematic content analysis, Mzimkulu and Simbayi (2006) found the following: •    The healers identi ed symptoms of psychosis as reected in the DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia. •    Aetiological factors were considered to include witchcraft, spirit possession and angry ancestors, as well as inherited vulnerabilities. •    Treatment approaches included induced vomiting, steaming and cleansing. Conclusion The study concluded that traditional and Western healing systems will continue to co exist and that there needs to be continued collaboration between these systems. Also see Campbell et al. (2017), and Keikelame and Swartz (2015). A brief history of mental illness Our current understanding and treatment of psycho-pathology has emerged from a long history that has undergone many developments and changes. e history of our relationship with mental illness might be understood as evolving through a number of eras. It is important to note, for instance, that even this historical account of mental illness is not free of a particular context and is largely a history told from a Western perspective, a perspective that dominates much of our thinking in this field. The early era Problems with madness and insanity have always been a part of the human condition (Porter, 2002). Skulls dating from 5000 BC have holes burrowed into the cranial region. e dominant understanding of mental illness during this period was informed by a belief that individuals who became psychologically disturbed were possessed by evil, supernatural forces. Presumably it was thought that, by boring a hole in the patient’s skull, the evil spirits causing the mental disturbance could be driven out. The ancient era e first evidence of a shift to a naturalistic view of mental illness can be found in the work of a Greek physician named Hippocrate