Today we live in a world that would like to view all 'non-normal' action on the part of humans to be the form of biological or other fundamentally controllable by science means. We define 'normality' as the actions and experience of the stereotypical masses as explained through communicative devices such as speech and written language.

Such a definition is wrong, insofar as it does not definitively decide what is right or normal—it only decides what is stereotypically average. Stereotypically average is a poor judgement as norm, as what people perceive to be normal, may not be substantiated by fact.

Are you 'insane'? Am I? Is normal society 'insane'? These questions are difficult to understand, without a precise definition of what is 'insanity'. A popular definition of insanity is essentially any person who violates social norms and rejects conformity. This notion is not blatantly said in society, but in essence, this is what is comes down to.

I do not like the definition for the obvious reason: it enforces conformity, and makes all those who dislike capitalist goals to be viewed as strange and therefore insane. The insane are many: those who choose the commune life-style, back-to-nature people, anti-technology loners, cults, and militiamen. These groups usually have beliefs that in contrast to mainstream, contain some kind of stigma, but are still part of society—and may not be in total conflict with society.

It is obvious to many intellectuals (Foucault, Laing) that the notion of insanity versus sanity, is little more then an issue of social control. Many have argued that such notions provide for invisible social control, forcing people to act in a certain way to avoid being deemed insane. Few people realize that they are controlled by the definition of insanity, but inevitably they are.

When you think about it, there is no such thing as insanity—it is a human construction. We term a person insane, based on our experience of an individual's actions. If we find their actions to be offensive enough and contrary to our beliefs on moral righteousness, then we deem them insane. There has never been, and likely will never be a clear physical or medical explanation of insanity. Science will never be able to successfully extend into the realm of perception, as it is just too subjective.

35 years ago, one psychological disorder was known as "homosexuality"—an attraction to a person of the same sex. Perhaps at that time, same-sex relations were so deviant that they were essentially a form of 'mental illness'. To be homosexual pre-1960s, was to be extremely deviant in behavior and thought. Still, many homosexuals did exist at the time, but it was well hidden. Today few would argue that people who choose same-sex relations are mentally ill. You may not like same-sex relations, but I don't think you view them as having anything but a bad sense of taste.

Psychology as a science, constantly must narrow its definitions if it plans to remain viable. Public acceptance of deviance is growing, and the medicalization of deviance can only existence when popular support finds certain actions to be so intolerable that they can no co-exist successfully with such persons.

Psychology and Science as a Perspective

You may try to argue that insanity is more then just perspective. You could cite the scientific research on the brain and the study of psychology, but a deeper perspective would show that such research is often based on guesses and presumptions that may not always test out to be true.

Psychology is dangerous like all sciences. Science allows us to close our eyes to common sense, it replaces what our senses understand with what our human generated theories and laws show us. We act as if all humans act the same, and exist as a single machine, acting alike. Science can be blind, so it frameworks of knowledge it gives us must always be critically considered.

As a social science, psychology is inheritably more dangerous. Social sciences attempt to understand human interaction, and in many cases control it. Political Science and Sociology look at problems from the outside, and try to analyze and improve a situation. Psychology does the same thing, but from inside the bodies of the individual actors. All too often now, psychology relies on science, instead of trying to understand why people act through their own experience.

Some psychology claims to gain authority through medical science, and things that medical research has shown us through the brain. Scientists for years have searched for the sole, trying to understand what really makes us act as we do. We have come fairly far, and we have a good guess of what parts of the brain control what part of a person's action.

Similarly, psychology has found certain correlationŐs between an individual's experience and how he currently behaves. Current behavior allows a limited window of predictability of future behavior. However, the predictability is generated through a correlation of what a large number of people do, and it is not clear if it applies to every individual. Additionally, I find any form of definite social science that claims to have criteria to explain all phenomena to be dangerous and fundamentally wrong.

Still, I do not believe that psychology or any other science can predict the future. There are too many variables in our world, and the psyche is also unpredictable. People get worked up, and then they calm down. They 'experience' new evidence that changes their worldview.

Deviance Not Medicine Theory: A Problematic View

The problem with considering all or most deviance to not be part of a mental condition is that it means that people who do have legitimate problems will be unable to seek the help they need, and will inevitably end up in prison, where we can segregate them from the rest of society. I concede that maybe some individuals are unable to make reasonable choices for themselves.

Knowing the distinction between insanity and deviance is difficult, as both can result in the same behavior. Many try to downplay the difference, as though all deviant people are insane or all insane people are deviant. The best way to find out the difference is to probe the other's individual's experience, and try to figure out why he acts like he does. So maybe psychotherapy does have a role, when used conservatively to the belief of deviance.

I tend to lean to the conservative side when it comes to differentiating the two groups. I'd rather see explicit social control through our judicial system instead of implicit social control through psychology, as the prior is more open and avoids the risk of penalizing people solely for their beliefs, which may be correct. A delusion is only a delusion as long as it's rooted in a belief that can be proven false. Many things that were believed to be false in previous generations are now accepted as true today. The example of homosexuality could be recited.

Psychology as a Path to Liberation

Liberation of the individual is the true enlightenment ideal, one that has been perverted repeatedly since the era of enlightenment to enslave the individual. Adorno, et. al noted this in the Dialetic of Enlightenment. Science gives us more control over nature, which liberates us, and the same time, gives us more control over mankind, which enslaves us. It also emphasizes end results over process, and attempts to modify process to produce the most desirable end products.

One of Sigmund Freud's ideal was to understand the human's actions through repressed childhood memories. He noted that much of what we do is based on the experiences we had as child. In other words, before we are 10 or 12, we see certain things and learn how certain things work, and those ideas stay with us for the rest of our lives. So if the individual could only understand who why he acts, he could be truly free to choose his actions, and therefore become autonomous and free.

Conclusions

Madness is mostly a modern social categorization for casting a stigma on certain types of deviance. A truly free society should embrace such deviance and see as being part of living in a diverse society, until the point where such deviance becomes essentially intolerable and causes substanial harm. This harm has to be more then just words, ideas, and gestures. It must make living life impossible or extremely difficult to other individuals or invoke physical harm to others.

Psychology as a social science that goes beyond other social science in its level of personalization posts unique risks. It can be used to control or influence people in ways that they may not be able to comprehend—an anti-thesis to the free society that we live in. Yet, on the other hand, it can give us a greater freedom, by understanding why and how we act.

To ignore the medical aspects of psychology would be to ignore important 'tested' theories on psychology. The results I've seen are pretty inconclusive, but they might benefit certain individuals. We just must make sure that any attempt at psychology protects a right for an individual to dissent and act freely in a free society.