In this week’s reading we examined the subject of the medicalization of deviance. While it might sound complex, the idea behind the medicalization of deviance is quite simple. In essence, it refers to the recatholicization of an uncommon behavior from being labelled or understood as deviant to being thought of as an illness. Accordingly, rather than classifying a person who is afflicted with the uncommon behavior as deviant, which can produce a wide range of negative reactions and actions from people not so afflicted; the person is deemed to be ill. Accordingly, as an illness is widely seen as curable or treatable, the heretofore deviant is now seen as a sick person in need of help, assistance and treatment. For example, the common yet nevertheless, rare affliction of shyness has been reclassified by some experts as rather than being a natural deviation of the human personality to being a mental ailment under a range of name such as “avoidant personality behavior” or an “anxiety related ailment” (Ireland & Mitchell, 2009).
While a large proportion of the earliest efforts to popularize the medicalization of deviance were largely the result of efforts to “expand medical jurisdiction,” eventually it has become a key underlying factor in a range of social activities and interactions (Conrad, 2005). To be sure, the power and influence of the medical industry generally; and physicians, in particular has formed an essential stepping stone for the public’s understanding of the difference between a deviant behavior and a mental illness. As mentioned in the Ireland and Mitchell, article, before you can sell a cure or treatment, you first have to sell an illness (Ireland & Mitchell, 2009).
Naturally one popular area where the medicalization of deviance has found a ready and supportive following is in the criminal justice system, whose very basis is the regulation of deviant behavior. Indeed, common shoplifting was transformed from being a simple minor criminal activity to being known, in some circles as kleptomania, or an illness of stealing the affected women (Abelson, 1989).To be sure, whereas in the past, a defendant might be found guilty of manslaughter for killing a pedestrian while driving a car under the influence, nowadays may or make the argument that as a result of his addiction to alcohol, rather than being sentenced to jail or prison, they could instead be assigned to a substance abuse treatment program which requires them to only complete a treatment program rather than the imposition of a term of imprisonment.
` The medicalization of deviance fits naturally with a social constructivist perspective (Conrad & Barker, 2010). To be sure, the primary social constructivist idea that knowledge and understanding are created rather than formed naturally or biologically find a perfect example in the medicalization of deviance. Accordingly, rather than a person’s deviance being a normal fact of their existence, and in essence, a trait or characteristics that is beyond cure; deviance is found to be flexible or fluid. That is to say, with the medicalization of deviance, deviance, like an illness can be observed, and treated differently depending on who is examining the individual. Consequently, since different people have different perspectives which are based on a range of social factors such as their family, where they grew up and how they were educated. In other words, the use of social constructivism to analyze the medicalization of deviance reveals the deviance can be subjective and therefore used for both positive and negative purposes. The key is to understand the subjectivity and examine the use of the medicalization of deviance accordingly.
Discussion Questions
1.) Is a person who is deemed medically deviant as opposed to biologically deviant be found guilty of a crime?
2.) What are the ethics behind using the medicalization of deviance to define the characteristics of a group?
3.) Who ultimately profits or benefits from the medicalization of deviance?
References
Abelson, E.S. (1989). The invention of kleptomania. Signs. 15(1). pp. 123-143.
Conrad, P. (2005). The shifting engines of medicalization. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 46(1). pp. 3-14.
Conrad, P. & Barker, K.B. (2010). The social construction of illness: key insights and policy implications. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(S). pp 67-79.
Ireland, C. & Mitchell, S. (2009, Apr. 28). Scholars discuss ‘medicalization’ of formerly normal characteristics. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/04/scholars-discuss-medicalization-of-formerly-normal-characteristics/
