Through a constructionist approach and the labeling theory, one can examine why those with mental disorders are considered to be deviant in society, how mental illness is labeled as deviant and the stigma that has been created, as well as the effects of a deviant status due to mental illness. Constructionist Approach to Mental Illness A constructionist
This perspective is worried about the meaning of deviance and how different acts are assigned as deviant. Even though both perspectives deal with who is or is not deviant, the positivist perspective is focused on the deviant and gives a reason for why someone commits a deviant act; whereas, the constructionist perspective focuses on the labeling of the deviant act and the response from other members of society in determining who is a deviant. Works Cited Thio, A. (2010). Deviant Behavior (10th ed.).
It is accepted that personality partially determines the development, course, and treatment of a psychological disorder. As such, much attention has been paid to the etiological relationship between personality and psychopathology, which claims that personality causes or “sets the stage for” psychopathology. However, the reverse is also true, shedding light on a reciprocal relationship. The pathoplastic model of personality and psychopathology states that just as premorbid personality influences psychopathology, psychopathology can alter the expression of personality traits. For example, patients assessed when they were in negative mood states (e.g., during a depressive episode) reported a more negative, distorted view of themselves than when they were assessed out of that state (Widiger & Smith, 2010).
Society individualizes people who are different. These people who show stigmatism often have one characteristic: fear, authoritarianism, or benevolence. There are people who fear the mentally ill. They believe that the mentally ill are dangerous and think it 's best to stay away from them. Authoritarianism people believe that the mentally ill are irresponsible and their decisions should be made by others.
While stigma may not necessarily be a cause of a person’s mental disorder, it can certainly contribute to the complication and perpetuation of their illness. The effect of stigma goes well beyond just the patient and provides a commentary on society’s overall level of intolerance of those who are considered different from the majority. By recognizing the level of stigma that exists, perhaps we can alter that behavior and gravitate towards a more productive attitude towards mental illness. There are certain negative connotations that people use when identifying those who they consider to be different from the majority. Stereotyping is a means of assigning a set of characteristics to a group of people usually in an unflattering, over-generalizing way.
Pembroke (2000) offers a challenge to this from the service-users perspective as one of ‘psychological reductionism’ when referring to the endorphin hypothesis of self-injury, alleged addiction to endogenous opioids. A further challenge to the ‘addiction hypothesis’ built on information previously discussed relating to the use of DSH as a coping mechanism. Faye (1995) describes DSH as 'crude, ultimately destructive coping mechanism, it is a mechanism that has many bad sides, but it works', and this could explain the attribution of addictive qualities. More acceptable coping mechanisms are repeated by individuals in circumstance of stress of personal difficulty without the self-destructive component. Faye (1995) suggested that less destructive coping mechanism are taught as a replacement and that these take time to become as effective as DSH.
This essay will provide an insight into the problematic nature of madness, by assessing the contribution of psychiatrists and psychologists, against the criti... ... middle of paper ... ... argue can become more or less pronounced depending wider society's representation of madness. Critiques of mental healthcare, such s that of Foucalt, are specific to time and perhaps slightly outdated. The fact is that mental health practioners actually hold more positive representations of the mentally ill and it is they who are entering into the dialogue Foucault argued for. Additionally, it is the mental health practioners who appear to be deconstructing the traditional confines pf what constitutes and what 'ought' to constitute 'normal' behaviour. Undoubtedly, there is a greater level of understanding to be reached in this area, and for the most part it is the lay representations of the mentally ill, that prevent these individuals from becoming the valid and recognized members of a society that they deserve to be.
In it, Freud claimed that civilizations are developed through the channeling of anti-social erotic and aggressive urges into constructive outlets. He went further and explained that social ills are caused by those members of society who are not satisfied with the substitutes supplied by the channelling of anti- social instincts into social creative energies. Such repression causes a certain tension which after awhile cannot be repressed and is released in socially
These terms may create a negative feeling of health professionals towards patients, an aspect that may lead to adoption of negative responses that may trigger self-destructive behavior (Giesen-Bloo et al, 2006). The fact however, is that the term borderline has been misunderstood and misused so much that any attempt to redefine it is pointless leaving scrapping the term as the only option. There is also a controversy with regards to whether borderline personality disorder is a disorder on its own or whether it ... ... middle of paper ... ...n fear and arousal (Schmahl, Berne, Krause, Kleindienst, Valerius, Vermetten &ump; Bohus, 2009). The work of dampening this arousal is carried out by the pre-frontal region of the brain. Brain imaging has revealed that personal differences in the capacity to activate areas of the prefrontal cerebral cortex, which is believed to activate inhibitory responses, predict the capacity to repress negative feelings (Williams Sidis, Gordon &ump; Meares, 2006).
In that sense Parsons noticed that when a person is sick, they are unable to carry out their social responsibility normally. Therefore, Parsons implies that the only way to understand the illness and its effect to society are to look at illness in a different angle as the form of deviance, which undermines the, role of society thus; it should be a way to control the situation same as crime and other form of deviance. This led Parsons to assess the relationship between illness and social control. Haralambos (2000 pg294) Since Parsons emphasised new advances in dealing with illness; thus, he put forward the historical method in the sociology of health known as sick role, he has then shifted illness from biological concept to social theory. Haralambos (2000 pg294) Parsons derived model of sick from studies of Freud, Max Weber and The functionalist.