The Harm of Psychologizing Deviance

The continued attempts to psychologize and “understand” deviance — even in the face of evil such as that which appeared in America on September 11 — show the distance some will go to avoid applying moral categories of judgment.  Sociologists Peter Conrad and Joseph Schneider cautioned us more than three decades ago that the medicalization of deviance would eventually “shroud conditions, events and people and prevent them from being confronted as evil.”  Said’s suggestion that the terrorists who tried to blow up America were deranged but not evil demonstrates how prophetic they were.  Although medicalizing deviance does not automatically render evil consequences good, the assumption that behavior is the product of a “sick” mind or body gives it a status similar to that of “accidents.”  Removing intent or motive hinders us from comprehending the human element in the decisions we make, the actions we take and the social structure we create.

The reluctance of sociologists to acknowledge that there are moral judgments  to be made when discussing a subject like deviance shows how far this discipline has strayed from its origins. …

Today the most influential definers of deviance are not moral figures but political advocates whose efforts often involve defending those previously regarded as deviant and attacking those previously regarded as normal.

Anne Hendershott, The Politics of Deviance, p.155-157