The Medicalization of Deviance

The transformation of moral and legal deviance into a medical condition

Swaps one set of labels for another
Moral terms
Bad or Good
Medical terms pass no moral judgment
Sick or Well
Can you think of any examples of behaviors that were once strictly treated as a matter of morality
rather than defined as an illness?
THE DIFFERENCE LABELS MAKE
Three consequences
It affects who responds to deviance
How people respond
Most importantly:
The two labels differ on the issue of the personal competence of the deviant person
Right or wrong, we are responsible for our own behavior
==========================================================================================
Deviance: Deviance can best be described as a label or definition that can be differentially applied to various
individuals and their behaviors, which can be viewed through sociological, moral, legal, and medicalized
lenses.

Medicalization of Deviance: Medicalization of deviance refers to the tendency to define deviance as a
manifestation of an underlying sickness, to find the causes of deviance within the individual rather than in the
social structure, and to treat deviance through the intervention of medical personnel (Horwitz, 1981).

The Medicalization of Deviance
According to Horwitz (1981), the medicalization of deviance refers to the tendency to define deviance
as a manifestation of an underlying sickness, to find the causes of deviance within the individual rather than
in the social structure, and to treat deviance through the intervention of medical personnel (p. 750).

Types of deviance which can be viewed through the lens of medicalization include:
Mental illness;
Alcoholism;
Opiate addiction;
Delinquency;
Hyperactivity;
Child abuse;
Homosexuality; and
The biological study of crime.

Societal reactions to deviance include deinstitutionalization, normalization, mainstreaming, and the
expansion of due process rights, which seem opposed, or at least somewhat related, to medicalization (p.
750). Horwitz (1981) further indicated that
medicalization should not be regarded as the sole, or possibly, even the major trend in deviance definition but
rather as one of a number of sometimes conflicting developments in the societal reaction to deviance (p. 751).
He continues, Social policy toward deviants is undergoing dramatic changes. Medicalization requires a
substantial resource base and funding for social services is undergoing a drastic decline. For students of social
control this situation raises the question of whether medicalization as an explanation of deviant behavior will
decline as resources for treatment are withdrawn (p. 752).




The Medicalization of Deviance
Deviance can be willful or unwillful. Increasingly in modern industrial societies, especially the
United States, if deviance is considered willful, it tends to be defined as a crime, and the criminal
justice system is called on to control it. But if deviance is considered unwillful, it tends to be defined as
an illness, and medicine, as a social institution, is used to control it.
This involves the medicalization of deviance, diagnosing and treating deviant behavior as a
disease. A good example is the common practice of diagnosing hyperactivity in schoolchildren as a
medical problem and then treating it with drugs such as Ritalin,
Concerta, and Adderall (Zernike and Petersen, 2001).
Even more commonly, medical psychiatrists, who use drugs to treat mental illness like a
physical disease, define many ordinary problems in our lives as mental disorders. Consider, for
example, what the psychiatric profession calls the disorder of written expression. This so-called mental
disorder consists of the poor use of grammar or punctuation, sloppy paragraph organization, awful
spelling, and terrible handwriting. It is possible that some students who exhibit these traits may be
mentally ill, but it is doubtful that most students with similar problems are mentally ill; they are simply
weak or unskilled writers. Also, consider the oppositional defiant disorder, from which children are
said to suffer if they often do any four of the following things: lose tempers, argue with adults, disobey
adults, annoy people, blame others for their own behavior, or act touchy, angry, or spiteful. It is
possible that in the heat of the moment, some parents may say that their disobedient kids are mentally
ill. But it is doubtful that most parents believe that these irritating behaviors are signs of mental
disorder (Kirk and Kutchins, 1994, 1992).

Once diagnosed as mentally ill, the individual is likely to be treated or controlled. Various social
and government agencies, for example, often recruit psychiatrists to treat youngsters whose behaviors
offend or disturb others, behaviors such as being defiant, using drugs, fighting, hating school, or being
disrespectful.
Actually, most of these youngsters have experienced poverty, child abuse, or family misery. But
instead of dealing with the abnormal environment that causes troublesome behaviors, the psychiatrists
label those normal children as mentally ill and then isolate or incarcerate them and give them drugs. In
short, kids who stand out as different may be labeled mentally ill and controlled accordingly
(Armstrong, 1993).














Minor prophets (Hebrew: , Trei Asar, "The Twelve") is one of the fifteen
[citation needed]
prophetic books of
the Jewish bible; Catholic and Protestant bibles treat each prophet as an individual book, but they appear in the
same order:
[1]

Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi




































Brighter side

1, Medicalization is related to a longtime humanitarian trend in the conception and control of deviance.

For example, alcoholism is no longer considered a sin or even a moral weakness; it is now a disease. .
Alcoholics are no longer arrested in many placed for public drunkenness; they are now somehow treated, if
only to be dried out for a time.

2, Medicalization allows for the extension of the sick role to those labeled as deviants.
It diminishes or removes blame from the individual for deviant actions.

3, The medical model can be viewed as portraying an optimistic outcome for the deviant.

4, Medicalization lends the prestige of the medical profession to deviance designations and
treatments.

5, Medical social control is more flexible and often more efficient than judicial and legal controls.



Darker side


1, Dislocation of responsibility
Defining behavior as a medical problem removes or profoundly diminishes responsibility from the
individual. Although affixing responsibility is always complex, medicalization produces confusion and ambiguity
about who is responsible.

2, Assumption of the moral neutrality of medicine
Cloaked in the mantle of science, medicine and medical practice are assumed to be objective and
value free. But this profoundly misrepresents reality. The very nature of medical practice involves value
judgment. To call something a disease is to deem it undesirable.

3, Domination of expert control
The medical profession is made up of experts; it has a monopoly on anything that can be
conceptualized as an illness. Medical definitions have a high likelihood for dominance and hegemony: they are
often taken as the last scientific word. The language of medical experts increases mystification and decreases
the accessibility of public debate.

4, Medical social control
Defining deviant behavior as a medical problem allows certain to be done that could not otherwise be
considered; for example, the body may be cut open or psychoactive medications given. This treatment can be
a form of social control.

5, Individualization of social problems
We tend to look for causes and solutions to complex social problems in the individual rather than in the
social system.

6, Depolitization of deviant behavior.
Medicalizing deviant behavior precludes us from recognizing it as a possible intentional repudiation of
existing political arrangements.

7, Exclusion of evil
The medicalization of social problems detracts from our capability to see and confront the evils that
face our world.


How People Respond To Deviance

A second issue is how people respond to deviance.
A moral approach defines deviants as OFFENDERS subject to punishment.
Medically, however, they are PATIENTS who need treatment for their own good and deserve
sympathy.
---
Along with, PUNISHMENT is designed to fit the crime, but treatment programs are tailored to the
patient to prevent future illness.
In this regard, medicaliation diminishes or removes blame from the individual for deviant actions.
But, domination of expert control is expected. It has a monopoly on anything that can be conceptualized
as an illness. The language of medical experts increases mystification and decreases the accessibility of
public debate.