Normal, Anyone?

I've been reading Allen Frances's new book, Saving Normal.  In it I ran across a simplified discussion of something that's been bothering me for some time.  During my investigation of psychology, even in my earliest understandings, there has always been the concentration on the pathological.  Much like Seligman's appraisal in his TED talk, a focus on pathology leaves quite a bit to be desired, particularly when the definition of health, or even normal is undefined.

So, what is normal?  That's one of the questions that Frances asks, as well as Seligman and notable others.  Frances makes the point that the WHO definition is an impossible perfection.  No one is without even the barest of hints of disease, maladaption, or strain.  Such perfect contentment is fleeting if it ever does happen, and represents that which will ruin society as a whole.

This focus on perfect health, and personal responsibility for one's emotions is tantamount to enslavement, and I'll tell you why.  Even when one's life circumstances are so dire, and unchangeable, the presumption is that the mind is free enough to soothe the pangs.  Under this logic, victims of rape, torture, abuse, neglect are all not just victims, but victims of their own making.  It's the just world hypothesis at work in its most insidious manner.  Taken to its logical conclusion, no trauma rationalizes debility, therefore no debility is to be expected even in egregious circumstance.

The current trend of therapies toward fixing cognitive fallacies, though necessary, capitalize on precisely these belief structures that dangle out from the edges of trauma.  Ellis was particularly ignoble in this regard, and in my mind so are his intellectual kin.  Bowen's meta-systems theory is only slightly better.  Without defining what's normal, and by extension what's to be expected inside the systems an individual represents, how can anyone hope to treat the individual swaddled by those same systems?

What's more, without defining health to a reasonable degree, analysts, therapists and researchers are swayed by cultural artifacts that direct not only their behavior, but the behavior, and lives of their clients as well.  Perhaps Rogers was wrong about one thing (and probably more),  that the "client" appellation would be good for the development of a relationship as a whole.  It makes it easier for therapists and clients to join, this is true, but it also reduces the responsibility of the therapist in the situation.  But then, with regard to Piff's recent studies on social class, perhaps Rogers was right, and didn't go far enough.  Perhaps it's the "father knows best" attitude that drives a wedge between client and therapist and feeds a cavalier attitude toward what is essentially the "other."

CBT, and REBT does have value.  I'm certainly not saying that it's worthless.  Several studies have shown substantial effect sizes.  However, it isn't the cure-all that some claim it to be, and it certainly isn't 16-week-savior it's often made out to be.  Situational influences are very real, and commanding.

A person who works for minimum wage is never going to be wholly functional.  And, it's very important to remember, perfect functionality is akin to psychopathology.  There are some areas of life, and living, where it's perfectly reasonable, and desirable to be less than functional.  In committing murder is only one extreme example.

Defining health, and defining normal, in my mind, should have been the first tasks of psychology instead of at, or near the last.  But then, we simply don't pay attention to what's normal.  It's part of what makes us what we are.

I still haven't figured it out.  What the hell is normal?