11966 – Charles Whitman Charles Whitman, 2.docx

1
1966 – Charles Whitman
Charles Whitman, 25-year-old engineering student, former
Marine killed ~17, wounded 32 in a mass shooting at University
of Texas, before being shot/killed by police.
Earlier that day, he also murdered his wife and mother.
2
I do not really understand myself these days. I am supposed to
be an
average reasonable and intelligent young man. However, lately
(I cannot recall when it started) I have been a victim of many
unusual and
irrational thoughts …
Please pay off my debts [and] donate the rest anonymously
to a mental-health foundation. Maybe research can prevent
further tragedies of this type.
Whitman left a note behind. His family agreed to an autopsy and
investigators found both a tumor and some other abnormalities
in his brain … in the amygdala, a region of the brain that

controls emotion. A follow up report concluded that the tumor
might have contributed to the shootings.
We can only wonder if Whitman’s family took solace in the idea
that perhaps he wasn’t truly responsible for the horrific crime
he had committed.
3
Crime: who/what is responsible?
mental illness addiction drugs
alcohol poverty racism movies/tv
video games politics immigration
overpopulation dysfunctional families
faulty prison system too many guns
the education system too soft on crime
society is too permissive – lack of respect
We’re no strangers, in the US, to violent crime. To what do we
attribute violent behavior??
4

Are some people just evil?
For as long as evil (or whatever we perceive as evil) has
existed, people have wondered about its source. And where
better to look than in the brain?
Everything we’ve ever done, thought or felt in our lives ,
scientists will tell us, ultimately is traceable to the web of nerve
cells firing in a particular way. The brain - the machine that
allows us to function as we do.
So [we might ask] if the machine is busted – if the operating
system in our head fires in crazy ways - are we fully responsible
for the behavior that follows?
5
NOTE: Article on slide for illustration purposes only, *you do
NOT have to read it*.
Reported in the Archives of Neurology – a 2003 case: 40-year-
old schoolteacher with no history of abnormal behavior
developed a sudden interest in child pornography, arrested for
making sexual advances to his young step-daughter, also
claimed he was going to rape a woman he knew. He was
assigned to a 12-step program for sex offenders.
BUT he flunked out of the course – he couldn’t seem to control

his sexual urges.
A day before he was to enter prison, he went to the ER with a
pounding headache, distraught and contemplating suicide. At
the same time, still unable to control his sexual impulses, he
was propositioning the nurses.
Doctors scanned his brain and found a tumor the size of an egg
in the right orbitofrontal cortex, the region that processes
decision making and other so-called
“executive functions.” The tumor was removed, and the man’s
behavior began to improve.
The judge allowed him to complete a Sexaholics Anonymous
Program, and the man eventually moved back home with his
wife and stepdaughter.
About a year later the tumor began to grow back, and the man
started to collect porn again. Following another operation his
sexual urges again subsided.
Should this man be blamed for his admittedly very inappropriate
(and illegal) behavior? Should he be held accountable for his
actions?
Today we spend more time than ever before looking at people’s
brains – often specifically to find out if the answer to criminal
behavior lies in the brain.
But if/when researchers do determine one’s brain is damaged –
to what degree do we hold individuals responsible for their
actions?
6
If our brain’s operating system fails …

Are we entirely responsible for our actions?
VIOLENT BEHAVIOR:
If our brain’s operating system fails … are we entirely
responsible for our actions?
7
8
Unfortunately, we still have way more questions than answers.
But scientists have long understood that a malfunctioning brain
could cause all sorts of changes in behavior.
9
Many neuroscientists are
concluding that there is a
biological basis to morality.

How did we, historically, attribute specific regions of the brain
to various behaviors?
ENTER: Phineas Gage
-25 year old railroad, worker in Vermont.
-suffered a major on the job injury in 1848.
-Gage was the foreman of a crew laying the tracks, tamping lack
powder into a hole drilled in rock when he apparently struck a
spark.
-the explosion that followed sent the tamping iron – a 3-1/2 foot
long bar, an inch in diameter, through his left check and clean
out the top of his head, landing some 30 yards behind him.
10
Phineas Gage
Audio clip
11
“Gage was no longer Gage!”
The surgeon who came to the scene described that he could
insert a finger through either side of the wound and actually
touch them together. It was a clean hole.

Gage didn’t die – and didn’t even seem to lost much of his
ability to function. He returned to work in less than a year. His
basic mental faculties – motor skills, memory, speech – were
essentially unchanged.
But what did change was his personality.
"Gage was no longer Gage!"
12
Brain scientists are still obsessed with the curious case of
Phineas Gage …
Scientists continue to be fascinated by Gage’s skull.
Phineas Gage’s misfortune became a scientific “moment.”
One that seemed to provide a direct cause and effect connection
– between brain trauma and change in personality.
13
The latest neuroscience research is presenting intriguing
evidence that the brains of certain kinds of criminals are
different from those of the rest of the population.
And – as helpful as this all may be, will be … the results raise
all sorts of moral issues. How do we apply this information?

14
Current research suggests that maybe some people are more
predisposed to committing crimes - because of brain
abnormalities.
>One study revealed that brain scans of people diagnosed with
antisocial personality disorder – a condition that many
convicted criminals have been diagnosed with – show
significant differences in their frontal lobes.
>Another study showed that many psychopaths have deformities
in their amygdala. Psychopaths lack emotion, lack remorse,
guilt.
15
Stephen Morse – law professor and professor of psychology:
calls it the fundamental psycho-legal error.
the belief that if you discover a cause, you’ve
relieved that person of responsibility
It’s been increasingly clear to many researchers that there are
significant biological differences between people who commit
serious crimes and people who do not.
Certainly not everyone with an “abnormal” brain will engage in

violent or otherwise aberrant behavior; at the same time, not all
criminals will be found to have brain abnormalities.
There may be a distinct correlation. But correlation is not
causation. Many questions remain, among the most pressing:
Can we hold people responsible for their actions, due to brain
irregularities? Does this explain, and therefore excuse crime?
Or rather does it provide criminals with a convenient excuse?
16
If we are responsible …
we can go to jail
we pay the price
we suffer shame and humiliation by going to prison
we suffer guilt and remorse
we can’t afford to take care of our families
we lose the respect of our families, friends, others
we can’t get a job
we’re at greater risk for drug/alcohol dependence
we might become a societal outcast
If we are not responsible …
we receive treatment at a hospital
we can take medication
we are patients, not prisoners
we receive sympathy, empathy, are treated with kindness
people feel sorry for us
people take care of us

17
235482.92
Stephen Morse – law professor and professor of psychology:
Stephen Morse –law professor and professor of psychology:
Make a post by answering the questions below then response to
2 students:
Race in the Cultural Imagination
1. What where your favorite television programs from ages 6-
12? For each of these, identify the race/ethnicity of the major
characters (Latino, African American, white, Asian American,
Native American, multiracial). Do the same with your favorite
films and/or video games.
2. What was the portrayal of these characters? Can you identify
any race related themes in these programs (interracial
friendships, racial discrimination, colorblindness etc.)?
3. How might have these media images influenced your
understanding of race?
2 hours ago
Catrina Taylor
Week 8
COLLAPSE

Top of Form
1. The television shows I watched as a kid growing up was
numerous of television shows. One of my favorite shows
growing up was called the Puzzle Place and it came on PBS.
The show was about a diverse group of children (puppets) from
all over the world and they would discuss everyday conflicts. I
also watched the Cosby Show. Which was about an affluent
African American family where the dad was a doctor and the
mom was a lawyer. My last favorite show was Zoom. This show
was also also on PBS about a group of diverse kids who did
different segments such as science experiments and jokes. Then
I also watched a bunch of African American teen and preteen
shows such as Moesha, Sister/Sister, Family Matters and Fresh
Prince of Bel-Air.
2. The two shows that was on PBS had very diverse characters
so they delay with interracial friendships amongst the
characters. Now the other shows such as Moesha, Family
Matters and Fresh Prince of Bel Air discussed issues concerning
racial discrimination.
3. Honestly, the shows that had majority African American
actors on it I related to the most. I think this was because I felt
the characters were more relatable to my everyday struggle.
Now I may not have had the family structure like the characters
had but I remember being taught how to be “black” when
venturing outside of the neighborhood.
Bottom of Form
Timothy Cameron
Week 8
COLLAPSE
Top of Form
I grew up watching The Simpson, Yu-Gi-Oh and Static Shock.
My favorite show was definitely Static Shock. I remember

fighting with my older siblings over the TV so I could watch it.
The main character is Virgil, a black high school student who
had powers allowing him to create and control electromagnetic
fields. Virgil’s best friend is a fellow classmate named Richie
who is white. Halo was my favorite Video game growing up. I
would say the characters in this video game have many different
races and ethnicities. The main character, Master Chief, never
shows his face so his ethnicity is not clear. However, the novels
have led people to believe he is white. Sgt. Johnson is an
important character in the story who is black.
The reason I liked Static Shock so much growing up
was because of his powers. I am watching clips of Static Shock
so I can recall details for this week’s discussion board. I never
realized that this show focused so much on racism. This show
addresses racial stereotypes and biases. In the first episode
Virgil accidentally finds himself in a black vs white gang fight.
He is given a gun that he immediately throws in the water. This
scene shows that Virgil is not out to do wrong, he was just
simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. In a different
episode Virgil is invited over to his best friend Richie’s place
for dinner. Richie’s father returns home from work early to find
Virgil in his home. Richie’s father does not like Virgil because
he is black and later says racist comments about Virgil
(youtube.com/watch?v=8V7a2pxeNeE). Overall, I think the
theme of Static Shock addresses and shows the true evil of
racism. I do not believe Halo had any racial discrimination in it.
If anything, the game was color blind in the way that futuristic
war movies are sometimes.
I am not sure if Halo influenced my understanding of
race. However, I do believe Static Shock influenced my
understanding of race even though at the time I did not realize it
was. Looking back at the show I believe it helped prevent me
from creating racial biases. The show shows people that racial
discrimination is wrong.
Bottom of Form

Make a post by answering the below questions than response to
both students
Choose one current or recent social movement to discuss in your
initial post for this week. Describe the movement including
what social issue(s) it addresses, how it began, how and why it
gained momentum, and the efforts being taken to instigate
social change. Overall, has this movement had a positive or
negative impact on society? Explain your answer.
Janay Stuckey
Week 8
COLLAPSE
Top of Form
The movement I have chosen to cover is the Black Lives Matter
movement as it has been a huge topic of discussion for most of
my teenage life. This movement was inspired by the increase in
police brutality and violence in the black community and that
just like everyone else, their lives carry importance and
meaning too. It originally began in 2013 after the acquittal of
George Zimmerman in relation to the shooting
of Trayvon Martin. Shortly after this incident two more
fatalities, Micheal Brown and Eric Garner, were discovered and
the protests from these activists began.
From my knowledge, the movement grew due to the increase
and spotlight on the mistreatment of black people by police
authority and civilians thinking it was acceptable. It also gained
momentum as those incidents were recorded, placed on
the internet, and included the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter. By
drawing attention to these issues, the activists and protesters
aim to bring awareness to the maltreatment and retaliation of
law enforcement to black people to decrease the number of
fatalities or abuse for minor offenses. I think it also instigates
social change by demanding that the officers who commit these
acts, be called out and accountable for their wrongdoings, which

gives law enforcement the hot seat compared to when they could
do these harsh acts with no consequence.
I think that overall this movement has had a positive impact. It
has drawn attention to the wrongdoings of law enforcement and
other people who mistreat black people for nothing more than
the color of their skin. I also think it allows people to take a
stand for change and educate themselves on social issues that
may not plague their communities but could overwhelm another.
I also can see where it may not be as effective as it can be
because some supporters then attribute every law enforcement
engagement as racially motivated, which is not true. I think that
blowing the issues out of proportion or assuming the intent is
not beneficial and can cloud the judgement of those who support
the movement as well. I think that like any movement, it has
those who have different or radical views on the topic but
overall, their outcome has been mainly informative and
positive.
Bottom of Form
Alli Huddleson
Alli Huddleson Week 8
COLLAPSE
Top of Form
One current social movement in the United States is Black Lives
Matter. This movement’s mission is to “build local power and to
intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the
state and vigilantes.” The Black Lives Matter movement is
based on several principles: we are expansive, we affirm the
lives, we are working, and we affirm our humanity. This
movement aims to gain awareness and equality for African
American lives in the United States. Black Lives Matter is to
show black humanity and the contributions to society, despite
the oppression.
Black Lives Matter was formed in 2013 as a response to the
trial that freed Trayvon Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman.

This trial gained national headlines because Martin was
wrongfully murdered. This movement was created by three
women: Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi. Black
Lives Matter has grown to have more that 40 different chapters
in less than 7 years. After the idea for this movement began,
tragedy struck again when Mike Brown was killed by a white
police officer. With two tragedies making public headlines, in
such a short time, this movement spread. In order to instigate
social change, this movement is developing new black leaders
and helping to empower the black community, so they stand up
for themselves despite the oppression they face.
This movement has had a positive impact. While many bad
things had to happen in order for this organization to start, the
Black Live Matter movement is a rapidly growing organization.
In such a short time this group has made a difference nationally
and grown in size. This group has become a household name
and has made me question and research a lot of what their
beliefs are. In order for minority groups to stop being
oppressed, we, as a country, need to show compassion with the
pain and suffering they are going through. This movement is the
start to putting awareness out in the public.
https://blacklivesmatter.com/herstory/
Bottom of Form
“The Normal and the Pathological”
Emile Durkheim
Abridged from The Rules of Sociological Method, pp. 65-73.
(New York: Free Press, 1964. First published 1895.)
[... ]If there is any fact whose pathological character appears

incontestable, that fact is crime. All criminologists are agreed
on this point. Although they explain this pathology differently,
they are unanimous in recognizing it. But let us see if this
problem does not demand a more extended consideration.[... ]
Crime is present not only in the majority of societies of one
particular species but in all societies of all types. There is no
society that is not confronted with the problem of criminality.
Its form changes; the acts thus characterized are not the same
everywhere; but, everywhere and always, there have been men
who have behaved in such a way as to draw upon themselves
penal repression. If, in proportion as societies pass from the
lower to the higher types, the rate of criminality, i.e., the
relation between the yearly number of crimes and the
population, tended to decline, it might be believed that crime,
while still normal, is tending to lose this character of normality.
But we have no reason to believe that such a regression is
substantiated. Many facts would seem rather to indicate a
movement in the opposite direction. From the beginning of the
[nineteenth] century, statistics enable us to follow the course of
criminality. It has everywhere increased. In France the increase
is nearly 300 per cent. There is, then, no phenomenon that
presents more indisputably all the symptoms of normality, since
it appears closely connected with the conditions of all collective
life. To make of crime a form of social morbidity would be to
admit that morbidity is not something accidental, but, on the
contrary, that in certain cases it grows out of the fundamental
constitution of the living organism; it would result in wiping
out all distinction between the physiological and the
pathological. No doubt it is possible that crime itself will have
abnormal forms, as, for example, when its rate is unusually
high. This excess is, indeed, undoubtedly morbid in nature.
What is normal, simply, is the existence of criminality,
provided that it attains and does not exceed, for each social
type, a certain level [... ]
Here we are, then, in the presence of a conclusion in appearance

quite paradoxical. Let us make no mistake. To classify crime
among the phenomena of normal sociology is not to say merely
that it is an inevitable, although regrettable phenomenon, due to
the incorrigible wickedness of men; it is to affirm that it is a
factor in public health, an integral part of all healthy societies.
This result is, at first glance, surprising enough to have puzzled
even ourselves for a long time. Once this first surprise has been
overcome, however, it is not difficult to find reasons explaining
this normality and at the same time confirming it.
In the first place crime is normal because a society exempt from
it is utterly impossible. Crime [... ] consists of an act that
offends certain very strong collective sentiments. In a society in
which criminal acts are no longer committed, the sentiments
they offend would have to be found without exception in all
individual consciousnesses, and they must be found to exist
with the same degree as sentiments contrary to them. Assuming
that this condition could actually be realized, crime would not
thereby disappear; it would only change its form, for the very
cause which would thus dry up the sources of criminality would
immediately open up new ones.
Indeed, for the collective sentiments which are protected by the
penal law of a people at a specified moment of its history to
take possession of the public conscience or for them to acquire
a stronger hold where they have an insufficient grip, they must
acquire an intensity greater than that which they had hitherto
had. The community as a whole must experience them more
vividly, for it can acquire from no other source the greater force
necessary to control these individuals who formerly were the
most refractory. For murderers to disappear, the horror of
bloodshed must become greater in those social strata from
which murderers are recruited; but, first it must become greater
throughout the entire society. Moreover, the very absence of
crime would directly contribute to produce this horror; because
any sentiment seems much more respectable when it is always
and uniformly respected.

One easily overlooks the consideration that these strong states
of the common consciousness cannot be thus reinforced without
reinforcing at the same time the more feeble states, whose
violation previously gave birth to mere infraction of convention
- since the weaker ones are only the prolongation, the attenuated
form, of the stronger. Thus robbery and simple bad taste injure
the same single altruistic sentiment, the respect for that which
is another's. However, this same sentiment is less grievously
offended by bad taste than by robbery; and since, in addition,
the average consciousness has not sufficient intensity to react
keenly to the bad taste, it is treated with greater tolerance. That
is why the person guilty of bad taste is merely blamed, whereas
the thief is punished. But, if this sentiment grows stronger, to
the point of silencing in all consciousnesses the inclination
which disposes man to steal, he will become more sensitive to
the offenses which, until then, touched him but lightly. He will
react against them, then, with more energy; they will be the
object of greater opprobrium, which will transform certain of
them from the simple moral faults that they were and give them
the quality of crimes. For example, improper contracts, or
contracts improperly executed, which only incur public blame
or civil damages, will become offenses in law.
Imagine a society of saints, a perfect cloister of exemplary
individuals. Crimes, properly so called, will there be unknown;
but faults which appear venial to the layman will create there
the same scandal that the ordinary offense does in ordinary
consciousnesses. If, then, this society has the power to judge
and punish, it will define these acts as criminal and will treat
them as such. For the same reason, the perfect and upright man
judges his smallest failings with a severity that the majority
reserve for acts more truly in the nature of an offense.
Formerly, acts of violence against persons were more frequent
than they are today, because respect for individual dignity was
less strong. As this has increased, these crimes have become

more rare; and also,many acts violating this sentiment have
been introduced into the penal law which were not included
there in primitive times.
In order to exhaust all the hypotheses logically possible, it will
perhaps be asked why this unanimity does not extend to all
collective sentiments without exception. Why should not even
the most feeble sentiment gather enough energy to prevent all
dissent? The moral consciousness of the society would be
present in its entirety in all the individuals, with a vitality
sufficient to prevent all acts offending it - the purely
conventional faults as well as the crimes. But a uniformity so
universal and absolute is utterly impossible; for the immediate
physical milieu in which each one of us is placed, the hereditary
antecedents, and the social influences vary from one individual
to the next, and consequently diversify consciousnesses. It is
impossible for all to be alike, if only because each one has his
own organism and that these organisms occupy different areas
in space. That is why, even among the lower peoples, where
individual originality is very little developed, it nevertheless
does exist.
Thus, since there cannot be a society in which the individuals
do not differ more or less from the collective type, it is also
inevitable that, among these divergences, there are some with a
criminal character. What confers this character upon them is not
the intrinsic quality of a given act but that definition which the
collective conscience lends them. If the collective conscience is
stronger, if it has enough authority practically to suppress these
divergences, it will also be more sensitive, more exacting; and,
reacting against the slightest deviations with the energy it
otherwise displays only against more considerable infractions, it
will attribute to them the same gravity as formerly to crimes. In
other words, it will designate them as criminal.
Crime is, then, necessary; it is bound up with the fundamental
conditions of all social life, and by that very fact it is useful,

because these conditions of which it is a part are themselves
indispensable to the normal evolution of morality and law.
Indeed, it is no longer possible today to dispute the fact that law
and morality vary from one social type to the next, nor that they
change within the same type if the conditions of life are
modified. But, in order that these transformations may be
possible, the collective sentiments at the basis of morality must
not be hostile to change, and consequently must have but
moderate energy. If they were too strong, they would no longer
be plastic. Every pattern is an obstacle to new patterns, to the
extent that the first pattern is inflexible. The better a structure
is articulated, the more it offers a healthy resistance to all
modification; and this is equally true of functional, as of
anatomical, organization. If there were no crimes, this condition
could not have been fulfilled; for such a hypothesis presupposes
that collective sentiments have arrived at a degree of intensity
unexampled in history. Nothing is good indefinitely and to an
unlimited extent. The authority which the moral conscience
enjoys must not be excessive; otherwise no one would dare
criticize it, and it would too easily congeal into an immutable
form. To make progress, individual originality must be able to
express itself. In order that the originality of the idealist whose
dreams transcend his century may find expression, it is
necessary that the originality of the criminal, who is below the
level of his time, shall also be possible. One does not occur
without the other.
Nor is this all. Aside from this indirect utility, it happens that
crime itself plays a useful role in this evolution. Crime implies
not only that the way remains open to necessary changes but
that in certain cases it directly prepares these changes. Where
crime exists, collective sentiments are sufficiently flexible to
take on a new form, and crime sometimes helps to determine the
form they will take. How many times, indeed, it is only an
anticipation of future morality - a step toward what will be!

According to Athenian law, Socrates was a criminal, and his
condemnation was no more than just. However, his crime,
namely, the independence of his thought, rendered a service not
only to humanity but to his country. It served to prepare a new
morality and faith which the Athenians needed, since the
traditions by which they had lived until then were no longer in
harmony with the current conditions of life. Nor is the case of
Socrates unique; it is reproduced periodically in history. It
would never have been possible to establish the freedom of
thought we now enjoy if the regulations prohibiting it had not
been violated before being solemnly abrogated. At that time,
however, the violation was a crime, since it was an offense
against sentiments still very keen in the average conscience.
And yet this crime was useful as a prelude to reforms which
daily became more necessary. Liberal philosophy had as its
precursors the heretics of all kinds who were justly punished by
secular authorities during the entire course of the Middle Ages
and until the eve of modern times.
From this point of view the fundamental facts of criminality
present themselves to us in an entirely new light. Contrary to
current ideas, the criminal no longer seems a totally unsociable
being, a sort of parasitic element, a strange and unassimilable
body, introduced into the midst of society. On the contrary, he
plays a definite role in social life. Crime, for its part, must no
longer be conceived as an evil that cannot be too much
suppressed. There is no occasion for self-congratulation when
the crime rate drops noticeably below the average level, for we
may be certain that this apparent progress is associated with
some social disorder. Thus, the number of assault cases never
falls so low as in times of want. With the drop in the crime rate,
and as a reaction to it, comes a revision, or the need of a
revision in the theory of punishment. If, indeed, crime is a
disease, its punishment is its remedy and cannot be otherwise
conceived; thus, all the discussions it arouses bear on the point
of determining what the punishment must be in order to fulfil

this role of remedy. If crime is not pathological at all, the object
of punishment cannot be to cure it, and its true function must be
sought elsewhere.
Final lecture notes:
HOW DO WE DETERMINE WHO’S NORMAL? What
constitutes normal behavior?
Context, of course. Determining normal behaviors depends
in part on particular
place/time. While there are some constants, for the most
part behavioral norms/social
norms are always shifting.
Social norms: help us distinguish who is “included” and who is
“an outsider.”
Who is behaving appropriately? Who isn’t – and what do
we do about it?
How do we really decide what’s normal behavior, or what’s
seen as weird, deviant, or a sickness?
Excerpted from an article by a young psychiatrist, just
beginning his medical career:
I’ve been thinking a good deal about normality lately. It’s a
concern in the medical world. The complaint is that doctors are
abusing the privilege to define normal. Ordinary sadness, critics
say, has been labeled depression.
“Boyishness” (or being very active), wanting to run and jump.
Is this “normal” behavior .. or is it ADHD?
Has a diagnosis of social phobia replaced ordinary shyness?

There are plenty of books that document this transition. Just a
few:
The Loss of Sadness: How Psychiatry Transformed Normal
Sadness into Depressive Disorder.
Shyness: How Normal Behavior Became a Sickness.
Back to Normal: Why Ordinary Childhood Behavior Is Mistaken
for ADHD, Bipolar Disorder, and Autism Spectrum Disorder
The Last Normal Child.
delves deeply into the factors that drive the epidemic of
children's psychiatric disorders and medication use today,
questioning why these medications are being sought, and why
Americans use more of these drugs with children than is used in
any other country in the world.
These books and more challenge what critics refer to as
psychiatry’s narrowing of the normal.
According to the young psychiatrist: The fate of normality is
very much in the balance.
As the number of mental disorders has increased over the years
… some people talk in terms of a PSYCHIATRIC POWER
GRAB.
Have the mental health professionals taken over? The
pharmaceutical companies?
Have they become the new arbiters of defining who or
what is normal?
Which leads to another complaint … that we in the United
States are overmedicated.

That we’ve narrowed healthy behavior so dramatically that our
“quirks” and eccentricities have become problems that we need
to fix. And in many cases, that we expect drugs to fix.
Some of the harshest CRITICS complain that often doctors
medicate patients who meet no diagnosis at all. They call it
COSMETIC PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY.
Which is a fancy way of saying trying to “fix” someone who at
one time would have been described as perfectly normal – say
someone who is insecure, lacking confidence. Less than ideal,
perhaps … but abnormal?
Today … there’s therapy for that. There are drugs for that.
So many behaviors that used to fall within the realm of normal
now have LABELS that we’ve all become familiar with.
EXAMPLE: A wife complains that her husband lacks empathy.
Does he have Asperger’s syndrome? (Which actually is no
longer called Asperger’s. Now we would say he’s on the Autism
spectrum)
Or perhaps he’s a guy who just doesn’t get it? Doesn’t see
human interactions in the same way that more socially aware
people do.
His wife might say that he just doesn’t recognize social cues the
way that
most women do.
Of course, this isn’t all bad. Labels are important. Diagnoses
can bring relief.
Parents who once might have considered their child slow, or not
very bright, may be comforted by a diagnosis of dyslexia. And

really … wouldn’t we rather have the label of dyslexia than the
accusation that a child is stupid. Or lazy?
According to the latest Diagnostic and Statistical Manual – the
“psychiatric bible” – the DSM-5 … it’s likely that almost 50%
of Americans will have a diagnosable mental illness in their
lifetime.
We could say … the latest version of the DSM makes it even
“easier” to get a diagnosis.
*****
If we think of having a diagnosable mental illness as being
under a tent, the tent seems pretty big. Huge, in fact.
How did it happen that half of us will develop a mental illness?
1. Has this always been true, and we just didn’t realize
how sick we were—we didn’t realize we were under the
tent?
2. Or are we really mentally less healthy than we were a
generation ago?
3. OR perhaps this is due to a third explanation … that we are
labeling as mental illness, psychological states that were
previously considered normal, albeit unusual, making the tent
bigger.
The answer appears to be all three.
FIRST: we’ve gotten better not only at detecting mental illness
but doing so earlier in the course of the illness. Better/earlier
detection results in better treatment options.
SECOND: some studies suggest that we’re not just diagnosing

better .. but that we really are getting “sicker.” They point to
comparative studies over time. But fundamentally flawed –
maybe people didn’t admit to how they felt, didn’t seek
treatment.
But … THIRD: There’s another explanation for the higher rate
of mental illness. One that implies CULTURAL SHIFTS.
What was once considered psychologically healthy (or at
least not unhealthy)
may now constitute a diagnosable mental illness. “Normal”
behavior now seen
as pathological.
Thus, the actual definition of mental illness has broadened,
creating a bigger tent with more people under it. This
explanation strongly suggests that we, as a culture, are more
willing to see mental illness in ourselves and in others.
Whatever the cause we do know …
That each edition of the DSM has increased the overall
number of disorders. And
remember, the DSM is the book that defines mental
illness.
DSM-I – 1952 = 106
DSM-III – 1980 = 265
DSM-IV = 297
The people who created the DSM-5 were determined to not add
any disorders .. but they did categorize them differently
(265 – but that doesn’t count sub-categories)
One example of a disorder included in the latest edition is
called “caffeine intoxication.”

This is characterized by at least 5 symptoms experienced
after consuming the equivalent of 2 or 3 cups of coffee.
These might include: restlessness, gastrointestinal problems,
difficulty sleeping, nervousness, and rapid heartbeat.
To meet the diagnosis, the symptoms must impair
functioning in some way.
A Time Magazine article a few years ago cried out: “Caffeine
Withdrawal is Now a Mental Disorder.”
Sub-titled: Does it really belong in a guide devoted to
mental disorders?
According to one critic: “It’s hard to believe that an episode of
too much coffee or Red Bull constitutes a mental disorder. But
guess what – it does! With disorders like this in the DSM, he
continued, it’s no wonder that half of Americans will have a
diagnosable disorder in their lifetimes. The wonder is why more
Americans won’t!
The DSM continues to nibble at the edges of “normal” by
reclassifying patterns of thoughts, feelings or behaviors that
were previously considered normal (albeit perhaps weird or
odd).
At the same time, it has lowered the threshold of what it takes
to be diagnosed with a given disorder.
For instance: the criteria for “generalized anxiety
disorder,” something that involves excessive and persistent
worrying.
A previous version of the DSM required 3 out of 6 symptoms
for diagnosis, where now only one symptom is needed.
Formerly the symptoms needed to last for 6 months .. now they

only need to persist for 3 months.
So, if you are excessively worried for three months about your
finances or your health or that of a family member (to the point
where you can’t control the worries), you could be diagnosed
with this disorder, whereas in the past you wouldn’t have been.
One result of a bigger mental illness tent is that there are fewer
people actually standing outside the tent. If we continue in this
direction – if it takes fewer symptoms or less severity to meet
the criteria for diagnosis – increasing #s of people will qualify.
There are, and probably will continue to be, fewer and
fewer people who will live their lives in relatively good
mental health according to the DSM.
The normal trials and tribulations of life—the periods of
sadness, or worry, of anxiety, or grief, or difficulty sleeping, or
drinking too much caffeine or having caffeine withdrawal
headaches—have been pathologized.
More “normal” thoughts, feelings, and actions now merit a
diagnosis. Providing a bigger tent for mental illness leaves us
with an increasingly restricted definition of mental health and
can make us all more likely to see mental illness when perhaps
it’s just normal human struggle.
We can become so used to seeing psychopathology that we
think—erroneously—that being odd or having difficulties must
be an expression of mental illness – rather than just an accepted
part of life.
What else is going in our culture that allows for this expanding
definition of mental illness?
Insurance. Pharmaceutical companies. Increased work
demands. Instant gratification.
>INSURANCE:
In order for medical care to be reimbursed by insurance, there
has to be a diagnosis. It has to be a real, legitimate illness.

>PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES:
Pharmaceutical companies search for ever-wider markets
for their products. When more people are diagnosed with a
given disorder (perhaps because of less stringent criteria), or a
new diagnosis is created, it widens the market for their drugs.
In fact, the DSM-5 and the pharmaceutical industry have a
significant number of connections: One study found that 70
percent of DSM-5 task-force members have financial ties to
the pharmaceutical industry.
>INSTANT GRATIFICATION:
online shopping, downloaded entertainment, and the
immediate access to the world available through the Internet, if
we have problems, we want a quick fix.
If a medication will help lessen uncomfortable thoughts or
feelings or maladaptive behavior, we are receptive to
medication.
“Like fast food, recent medication-centered practice
comes from the most aggressively consumerist society (USA),
feeds on people’s desire for instant satisfaction and a ‘quick
fix,’ fits into a busy life-style.” But if we’re going to take
a medication, we need to have a problem that is being treated—
at least to get those doctors’ visits reimbursed by the
insurance company.
>ELIGIBILITY FOR FINANCIAL/OTHER HELP FROM THE
GOVERNMENT:
Certain diagnoses make the sufferer eligible for
government services or programs or supplementary
educational services.
People who feel they or their loved ones could benefit
from those services may advocate for a widening in definition

that would enable more people to be diagnosed and thus
eligible for those services.
>Finally, perhaps there’s another reason: as our lives take on an
even more frantic pace and our workload becomes ever greater,
perhaps we’re relieved to put a label to the anxiety, the fatigue,
the worry, or other suffering that we might feel. But .. many
people ask, is labeling half of us with a mental disorder the best
way to do it?
Regardless of how we personally feel about all of this … as a
society we’re definitely moving in the direction of the
“medicalization of deviance.”
And this constitutes a paradigm shift.
A SHIFT toward understanding behaviors as a matter of health,
Understanding behaviors as due to underlying sickness.
Finding the causes of deviance within the individual rather
than in the social structure. And treating deviant behavior
through medical intervention.
Wayward Americans:
A class not devoted solely to mental illness – but one that
encourages us to think
about how we are all seen – or may have been seen in
previous years – as “normal.”
Social norms.
Socially acceptable, culturally acceptable behavior.
In order to examine these behaviors, we realize that CONTEXT
is vitally important.
Time & place
We’ve talked about cognitive abilities – in terms of intelligence
and what happened to some people (historically) who

didn’t “measure up.”
The Supreme Court decision Buck v. Bell said ok to
sterilize people who it seemed wouldn’t contribute to the
collective gene pool.
In THE YELLOW WALLPAPER Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s
character suffered from
post-partum depression – just as she did in real life.
Given that Perkins Gilman was a member of “elite” society
and could afford the best care at that time – she went to a
sanitarium for about 6 weeks and said afterward that she
nearly lost her mind.
Today post-partum depression is widely recognized,
usually short-lived and treatable. Women are encouraged to
seek help and far-less stigmatized than
they were previously.
Postpartum depression hadn’t been created yet. Perkins
Gilman was instead
diagnosed with neurasthenia. While she was forced to lie
in bed and try to
reduce any mental clutter, well-to-do men were sent west
to live the outdoor life.
We talked about mental retardation, feeble-mindedness – some
cases deemed serious enough to warrant sterilization.
Of course, the diagnosis often masked what was really
going on … in some
cases young women who became pregnant after being
raped were targeted.

One of your readings had to do with whether or not trained
professionals could recognize insanity. In a therapeutic setting –
a psychiatric institution.
This particular research study determined that they
couldn’t.
That’s not to say that there haven’t been many people
whose behavior clearly indicated that they are seriously
mentally ill.
Previously many of them would have been
institutionalized.
But we learned that the vast majority of the large psychiatric
institutions have closed. Patients were sent back into the
community – ideally with access to medication and therapy.
Some did receive it. Many didn’t.
One recent article proclaimed: “How the Loss of U.S.
Psychiatric Hospitals Led to a Mental Health Crisis”
“State hospitals began to realize that individuals who were there
probably could do well in the community … It was well
intended, but what many believe happened over the past 50
years is that there’s been such an evaporation of psychiatric
therapeutic spaces that now we lack a sufficient number of
psychiatric beds.”
While the deinstitutionalization movement helped many people
receive appropriate care outside of large health centers, a
significant # of people who could benefit from inpatient care
can’t get it.
Neuroscientists tell us … it’s all in our head. Literally. Our
brains determine our actions.

Science has made huge strides in understanding the human brain
and how it functions.
Neurotransmitters are responsible for our moods and our
general mental state.
Severe mental illnesses, such as Schizophrenia and Bipolar
Disorder, are diseases of the brain.
Lesions or damage to the frontal lobes and to other parts of
the brain can cause impulsive behaviors.
What about addiction? Is it a disease? Learned behavior? A
habit one can break? A lack of social connections?
In fact the staggering statistics regarding opioid addiction raise
questions not just about what causes this but “who” caused this?
According to many, big pharma bears a great deal of
responsibility for fostering this dependence on pain-killers
… and the cheaper non-prescribed alternatives.
A just-released study determined that:
Aggressive direct marketing to doctors by pharmaceutical
companies is tied to fostering the ongoing epidemic of
opioid abuse in the United States.
A county-by-county analysis showed that opioid use
increased in places where drug makers focused their
marketing efforts. "The counties that had the most opioid
product marketing from pharmaceutical companies were the
counties that subsequently one year later had more opioid
prescribing and had more opioid overdose deaths.”
In the meantime, the U.S. opioid addiction crisis continues.
Abuse of the drugs led to nearly 50,000 overdose deaths in
2017, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
Americans now are more likely to die from an opioid overdose
than from a car or motorcycle crash, a fall, drowning, or

choking on food, the recent study concluded.
Heroin and fentanyl today are much more commonly involved in
U.S. overdose deaths than prescription opioids … however,
prescription opioids are still involved in about one-third of
opioid overdose deaths, and they're commonly the first opioids
people encounter before they start having a problem with
addiction
All of this knowledge raises disturbing questions. Does any of
this mean that we are not responsible for our behavior? Does it
mean that we have no “free will” because “my brain made me
do it?” It it’s true that my brain made me do it then, as a result,
anything I do is a result of the way my brain works. In other
words, I didn’t choose to steal that item, my brain did?
What about criminal behavior?
Sometimes peoples’ behavior is so egregious that they’re
seen as just plain evil.
We debate whether violent psychopaths, for example, are
morally responsible for their actions. Can they be held
responsible if they’re mentally ill?
Emile Durkheim told us that crime is a necessary component of
a healthy society.
Isn’t that more of a philosophical debate? That crime helps
us to create, to recognize social norms.
But that’s in the abstract
What about violent crime? And the idea that
neuroscientists are telling us everything stems from the
brain. And maybe people just can’t help bringing automatic
rifles into public places and killing scores of men/women
and children.

Maybe violent behavior is due to a brain abnormality,
something inside of us that we
can’t control.
And I get it that someone could have a mental illness that
makes them do that. I honestly can’t believe that Andrea
Yates, the woman in Texas who in 2001 killed her five
children, wasn’t suffering from postpartum depression with
psychosis – which is what she was diagnosed with. And that
possibly if she had received sufficient mental health care
with follow up support – wouldn’t have done something so
horrible.
I get that crime is “normal.” And while we have compassion for
anyone who has been the victim of a violent crime .. we can at
the same time believe that there are some people who suffer
from a severe mental illness that’s responsible for their violent
behavior (though most mentally ill do not commit crimes).
But what about when we’re personally affected? Or our
close friends or family?
Do we care that crime is “normal?”
Do we care that the perpetrator “couldn’t help
himself/herself?”
And therein lies the rub! Does this make us all hypocrites?
Perhaps.
I’d argue not so much hypocritical, as it is complicated.
Something that we will continue to recognize and reconcile
with. These are extremely complex issues that don’t lend
themselves to easy answers. Behavioral norms, societal norms,
will continue to shift, determined in part by time, place, and
many other factors yet to be determined.
1

This essay asks you to refer to the medicalization of behaviors
that deviate from social norms.
According to sociologist Allan Horwitz, 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.
Numerous advances in science and medicine have helped to
create this paradigm shift toward a medical model of
understanding deviant behavior. Other social forces have
contributed as well. The medicalization of deviant behavior
reflects and redefines cultural norms; shifts responsibilities;
reexamines the role of government intervention; has escalated
pharmaceutical research and sales; has fostered increased
reliance on health insurance; has expanded the role of the public
education system; and has caused many to question the role of a
prison system that has been defined comparatively and
historically by extreme rates of imprisonment.
Constructing deviance as illness confers a moral status different
from crime or sin. It impacts, in countless ways, “… ordinary
people whose self-identity and life decisions may depend on the
prevailing concepts of health and illness”.
Reflecting on readings, lectures notes, and the topics and
themes we’ve addressed throughout the semester, write a 2
pages, double spaced essay that critically examines “the
medicalization of deviance”. Please keep in mind that this is not
a formal essay, but rather a collection of ideas.

11966 – Charles Whitman Charles Whitman, 2.docx

11966 – Charles Whitman Charles Whitman, 2.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from RAJU852744

More from RAJU852744 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

11966 – Charles Whitman Charles Whitman, 2.docx