Mental Symptoms and Public Order
Social norms are the basis of psychiatric normality. Those who behave "normally" are unnoticed by society and those who behave "abnormally" are referred or remanded to psychiatric care. So the first measure of whether a person is sane is societal acceptance: the lay public, with no training or knowledge of psychology, are the first to pass judgment on a person's behavior.
There are instances in which socially improper behavior is considered psychologically normal (society may disapprove of divorce, but some marriages are toxic) and psychologically dysfunctional behavior is considered social acceptable (sexual abstinence or ritual self-mutilation). In these instances, it is the proper duty of psychology to challenge social norms.
But in most instances, the members of the mental healthcare profession are enforcers of the social norms. And in order to make a living in society, most mental healthcare professionals kowtow to the social norms - the psychologist who defends unacceptable behavior is himself regarded as unacceptable, one who is attempting to prove the legitimacy of something most people find undesirable and wish to eliminate.
This is particularly evident in the lack of objectivity in the psychiatric definition of social disorders: any behavior that is not socially acceptable may be classified as a disorder of this kind, even if there is no objective standard by which it can be demonstrated to be dysfunctional: it is unacceptable merely because society does not approve of it.
There is also the incidence of self-diagnosis: the individual who seeks therapy because he feels unhappy, often because he feels isolated from society or "different " from what he presumes to be the social norm. The goal of such therapies is to restore the patient to a state of happiness, which is in effect aligning his behavior or self-perception with social norms, such that he may feel "normal" and be happy as a result.
And similarly, the psychologist in private practice is likewise motivated to become the enforcer of social norms. There are instances in which a healthy person ought to be unhappy and instances in which being an individual means being at odds with society - but no patient seeking therapy will be satisfied to hear such things, and he certainly will not be willing to foot the bill for a lengthy and expensive course of treatment.
So while the case has been made that not all misconduct is a symptom of a mental dysfunction, it remains true that much of it is. A person who behaves in an objectionable manner has a questionable mind-set - whether he does not understand why his behavior should cause offense, or knows what he is doing is offensive and chooses to do so anyway is incidental.
Another problem of psychology is that the patient is diagnosed in a setting that is removed from social context: it is himself and his therapist alone in a clinic. Whereas behavior that leads to the diagnosis has taken place in the wild: in his home, neighborhood, workplace, or some other social setting. We may observe behavior in public, and even set up an artificial semi-public space (group therapy), but the observation, diagnosis, and treatment of social disorders usually takes place in a non-social context.
There's a loose note about the duration and degree of socially unacceptable behavior. The degree to which a person may step out of line and the duration of the time he may act in an unusual manner are both entirely subjective. A mild and brief instance of unacceptable behavior is a simple gaffe and the offender can quickly recover and be forgiven, and there may even be a period of time where the person's behavior is out of order and he may have been said to have had a "bad day" or at worst have been temporarily insane. In neither instance is the person considered psychologically defective - but there are no firm or objective definitions of the intensity or duration that becomes cause for greater concern about the character of the individual.
(EN: This brings to mind socially acceptable excuses that are often tendered by a person or on their behalf. Unusual or offensive behavior might be tolerated or pardoned if there are extenuating circumstances - a person who is intoxicated, who recently suffered a loss, or some other reason may expect a certain degree of clemency when their behavior crosses the line.)
If behavior is considered to be socially unacceptable, it is only so in the context of a social group that has defined rules for acceptable behavior and has a method by which behavior of individuals within that group is assessed.
A social group must to some degree defend its rules: if a person may behave in a contradictory manner and the group does not react to correct them, them the legitimacy of the rule and even of the group's authority comes into question. To defy the group's demands is a form of rebellion.
In authoritarian societies, the challenge of any rule is met with a quick and severe response - but in most societies, the rules are not arbitrary, but are linked to the function of the group, such that challenging them is not merely a challenge to authority, but a threat to the social order.
Aside of the desire to preserve authority, there are functional rules. A person who disobeys the rules is obstructing the behavior of those who follow the rules - just as a person who drives on the "wrong" side of the road poses a threat to those who are following the social rules, or a person who cuts in line affronts those who patiently wait their turn.
There is also the question of intent: what caused an individual to break the rules? It may be their intention to challenge the authority of the group or their status within it. It may have been seen as a functional necessity given some unusual circumstance. It may have been because the individual was unobservant or ignorant of the rule.
There is also the question of intensity and duration. Some rules are considered far more important than others - cardinal versus venial sins. A one-time infraction is considered less of an offense than a habitual pattern of offensive behavior.
Another loose bit is the reliability and trustworthiness of the individual himself. It is predicted that a person will act in accordance with the rules of society - hence a person who violates those rules is acting in an unpredictable manner. It is believed that all persons consent to following the rules - hence a person who violates the rules is breaking his vow, and is regarded as untrustworthy.
While it is tempting to consider that there is a system of well-defined social rules and that the behavior of individuals is reliably and objectively assessed in consideration of them, none of this is strictly true. Rules are vague and ambiguous, and it is often impossible to assess whether a given behavior is acceptable or unacceptable - it is done by gut feel and in a very imprecise and inconsistent manner.
Within a society, there are various orders of rules: The first order of rules protect person and property. To physically injure someone or damage their possessions are clear violations. A second order of rules pertain to liberty. To pose an obstruction to others - whether physical, psychological, or sociological - is an offense. The third order of rules are procedural: they provide guidance for behavior that facilitates the accomplishment of goals. And ti is a fourth order of rules that concerns status: providing an indication of what is acceptable or unacceptable based on the status of the individuals involved in any interaction.
Social interaction is also a form of communication: before anything is done, we must agree on what will be done, and the agreement requires verbal or nonverbal communication. There is a mutual understanding, mutual agreement, and mutual commitment of each party to do what has been agreed upon.
Behavior is also assessed in a given context, or "behavior setting" - such that behavior that is required or expected in one context is not expected, and may be inappropriate, in another. A few different contexts are defined:
- Occasion - A social event that is generally arranged in advance, such as a dinner party. An occasion is in a defined physical space and a defined duration in time, and there are often rules that are particular to occasions - whether they apply to one specific occasion or all occasions of a given kind.
- Gathering - An informal event that occurs when any set of individuals finds themselves in one another's company. A situation becomes a gathering when the social context is recognized.
- Encounter - an interaction between two or more parties. It may occur within the context of occasion or gathering, or it may occur independently, as a "chance encounter."
Then, there is a mention of focused and unfocused interaction. Focused interaction considers the mental engagement of both parties in their interaction, such as a conversation. Those involved recognize that they are engaged. Unfocused interaction occurs when there is not a mutual focus on engagement. Consider how people often "size each other up" when they meet, but do not directly engage - some interaction has taken place, but a formal (focused) interaction is not initiated or expected by either party.
There is mention of "metacommunication" - the rules that regulate the initiation, maintenance, and termination of engagement. This is generally functional: people recognize the need to interact with one another to achieve a goal, then continue to interact until the goal is achieved, at which point the interaction ceases. But there are also social encounters in which a person may feel the "need" to say something to another person even though there is no recognized goal.
The author feels there has been no systematic study of unfocused interaction. It is vaguely understood as a period of assessment made by one or both parties - deciding whether to engage at all before actually initiating engagement, and very often resulting in the conclusion that engagement is not necessary. No social interaction seems to have taken place between two parties who have sized each other up and decided not to engage in focused interaction.
The author assert that when a person behaves in a "classically psychotic" manner, the diagnosis is generally in reference to his nonconformance to the rules of engagement - but it is invariably from the perspective of an individual who disagrees with his choices. The actor may feel it appropriate to engage or disengage, and the assessor feels that the actor has made an inappropriate choice.
We must seek to understand the motives of a person who engages in such conduct. When one person attempts to initiate engagement and another fails to respond, this "failure" may in fact be entirely intentional and for good reason, at least in the perspective of a person who feels they were inappropriately approached and does not wish to engage.
For example, consider a middle-class girl who ignores the hoots and catcalls of the lower-class men at a construction site. Her choice to ignore their attempts to engage her is, from her perspective, entirely justified and the most logical choice: it would be inappropriate and potentially dangerous for her to respond at all to their attempt to engage her attention.
Whenever people come into come another's physical proximity, there is the possibility of engagement - but engagement is not always mutually desirable. When both parties wish to engage, engagement occurs and it is socially acceptable. When neither wishes to engage, no engagement takes place and there is likewise no sense that anything abnormal has occurred. Problems only arise when one party feels engagement is appropriate and the other does not - and in such instances the party that attempts to initiate engagement is guilty of socially inappropriate behavior.
Such improprieties, while inappropriate, are not always signs of a psychiatric syndrome - but are more often a misunderstanding of social rules or a misinterpretation of the context or the behavior of the other party. Such misunderstandings are common and inevitable. It is only the egregious and/or systematic disregard for social order that merit reaction and classification as disorderly.