1

Jake Maisto

Those who take advantage of the clinical psychology system

Professor Rebecca Morean

English 100-20
24 April 2015
Go With the Flow
Everyone has been labeled throughout the course of their life, whether being called a
tattle tale on the playground, a nerd in high school, or a failure later in life. While the first
two may be stopped by a teacher or adult, the latter is usually determined by the same type of
people in charge of stopping the former. Labeling people has been around since, well, forever,
and it is not going anywhere. Every day people are judged and put into groups based on what
they wear, who they associate with, social class, taste in music, athletic ability, etc. Those placed
in these social groups may act strong, but in the end the thoughts of others are inserted into their
minds. The labeling of individuals or groups can negatively affect them because our behavior is
based on what we think of ourselves and can lead to being exiled from future situations and
causing emotional distress. Unless something is done to prevent said categorization, people will
continue to be treated unfairly and dishonorably in a world that needs to change. To distance
society from the notion that labeling everything is important and the world is black and white,
there needs to be a better understanding on labeling theory, the DSM, and clinical psychology as
a whole.
Labels go way back
Labeling theory, theorized by Emile Durkheim and later developed by Herbert Mead, is the
theory that peoples behaviors and self-identity can may times be influenced by how others
classify them (Dye 1). Labeling theory has two levels: primary deviance and secondary

deviance. Primary deviance is the initial behavior that leads to one being categorized in the first
place. Once that label has been set and established, it is followed by secondary deviance, which
is when that person starts to believe this labeling is true and begins to make it a part of their
identity. Durkheim realized that society feels the need to control behavior, so when an individual
or group does something, society sticks a label on them, saying they are all the same and to
watch out or theyre okay to be around. Herbert Mead said that self-identity changes as
people go through various social interactions (Dye, 2). Basically, they believe what society tells
them they are. These people are then placed into certain groups because of how they were
labeled. Once they are considered to be a certain stereotype, it can be very difficult to move up
in the world. Someone who commits a crime will most likely be categorized as a criminal for
the rest of their life. This could affect getting into a school, receiving a job offer, being part of
other social groups, etc. They are forced to join the less desirable social groups, making it easier
to stray from the pack once again (Dye 1).
Labels come in variety packs
Labeling often comes in an either-or type of thinking. People are many times said to be
good or bad, police are brutal or not brutal. In several cases, failure to see that there is a
middle ground can lead to inaccurate notions about a person or group (Clarke 2). There are
always extremists that see only through tunnel vision, always pointing to their personal beliefs.
If someone is called bad, the only other option would be good, even though that is not true.
Once that label sticks, it is not easy to get rid of, and can have negative connotations for a long
period of time.

Seeking acceptance is another reason why labels are attached to people. Everyone wants
to fit in, to belong, to be a part of a group. That desire can lead to conformity to the standards set
up by this society, because they dont want to be looked at as an outcast. Those individuals will
act how they have seen others act at a certain job or place, turning them into exactly that
stereotype, removing a sense of identity and replacing it with societys version of that. Society
tells everyone that they can become a rags to riches story if they try their best, they can
achieve their dreams no matter what, but sometimes, many times really, that is simply not true.
People make mistakes; no one is perfect, therefore not everyone will have the same positive
outcome in life. Societys view of success and happiness is not awarded to everyone, and unless
people can understand that it is okay to set their own reasonable goals and achieve their own
version of happiness, the same labels and stereotypes will continue.
System dysfunction
The practice of labeling is not something that uneducated folks use when they dont like or
understand someone. It is a routine, everyday occurrence in the use of social psychology. The
first place to turn to in order to understand that fact is the DSM, or the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders. Although the DSM-I was released in 1952, a classification system
had been used in the United States prior to that. The issue originally came about in 1840, when
the census recorded the number of people with idiocy/insanity. By 1880, seven different
categories for insanity were determined: mania, melancholia, monomania, paresis, dementia,
dipsomania, and epilepsy. By the end of World War II, there were four classification systems
fighting to be the official system: The American Psychiatric Associations, the U.S. Armys
system, the U.S. Navys system, and the Veterans Administrations system. Since so much
confusion arose with that many systems in place, the APAs Committee on Nomenclature and

Statistics started working to form one truly official classification system, the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
When finally published in 1952, the DSM-I contained three categories of
psychopathology. This included organic brain syndromes, functional disorders, and mental
deficiency, resulting in a total of 106 diagnoses. In 1968, a second version of the DSM was
published, the DSM-II. It contained 11 categories with a total of 185 disorders. (Moon 1).
These first two were not very detailed; so many errors were made in diagnosis. Each description
was written by a small group of people and their studies instead of being based off of what the
rest of the world had researched, which also led to questions. A man named Thomas Szasz,
fervently against the practice of labeling disorders, led a movement against psychiatrists. He
wrote a book titled The Myth of Mental Illness in which he claimed that mental disorders are
not disorders at all, and are really just problems with living. He criticized psychiatrists and
accused them of being a type of moral police (Moon 2).
Even with all the arising questions, the production of a DSM-III did not stop. This time
the growth was not so subtle: it contained 482 pages and 265 diagnoses, a large upgrade from
the former DSM which only had 92 pages and 185 listed disorders.

The classes of

diagnoses were very broad, which also became an issue. If two clinicians determine that a
patient has a personality disorder but do not agree on which specific disorder, it was viewed as
acceptable, even though the treatments could be very different, because of how the coding was
set up (Moon 3). In 1994 a 4th edition of the DSM was released. This one contained 886 pages
and 365 diagnoses. It, as did the others, came with some controversy. Although it was claimed
to be atheoretical, it seemed to lean towards biological explanations for disorders. Symptoms for

many disorders overlapped, which would make it difficult to determine exactly which disorder
was present within a person. Reliability became an issue.
Some of the disorders listed in the DSM are everyday occurrences, such as caffeineinduced sleep disorder, that could cause diagnoses to lose their value. It seems almost as if
everything can be viewed as a disorder or problem rather than just something people deal with in
their life. Ever since it was published, the DSM has been widely criticized for that reason,
among others, such as reliability, consistency, and validity. Some of the summaries of disorders
contain a large amount of information, while others offer almost nothing (Moon 3). For a
multitude of disorders, only a small amount of criteria is needed for diagnosis, which begs the
question on how they are so sure it is a specific disorder rather than a human being with a few
flaws, which everyone has, no matter what they say (Moon 4). Why has the DSM grown from a
small amount of disorders to an almost 900 page document? Now of course it has to grow,
seeing how science and technology has evolved and the extensive research that has been
completed, but it is necessary to label almost everything as a disorder or issue?
What are you paying for?
One place where labeling is ever present is within psychiatry. Categorizing in clinical
psychology has some useful advantages, not to say it is completely negative: when someone is
classified properly, it gives a good idea to a clinician or anyone who understands the disorder
how that person will behave or what to expect. It can help put everyone on the same level, so it
is easier to understand. Labeling also helps set a standard for the researching aspect, as well.
When completing experimental research they can gather people with the same type of behaviors,
which would be difficult without the categorization (Poland 1). Along with these advantages,

there are also several disadvantages of labeling in clinical psychology: Many times there is a
tendency to use an all or nothing approach when diagnosing. They either definitely have the
disorder or dont at all. Instead of trying to help communicate the issue, often psychiatrists try to
use this as an explanation to the problem (Poland 1). As previously stated, there are multiple
ways in which a diagnosis is made, and with different systems at times come disagreement. The
reliability factor is still not present, after all this time. Another disadvantage, also stated
previously, is that the DSM was made up by a group of professionals who can choose to add or
subtract and disorder whenever they want, based on their own research and beliefs, not of the
overall research done by the world. This also affects the reliability and can lead many to
question its accuracy (Poland 2).
Once a label is established, a whole new world of issues is opened up. The diagnosis
needs to be used as a tool for treatment rather than just an explanation for what is wrong with
someone. Medicine is not always the answer, but it seems as though that is where clinicians
automatically go. When pills are prescribed and purchased from the pharmaceutical company,
who is the real winner? The clinician, pharmacy, and insurance company all make lump sums,
but what about the individual spending insane amounts of money to buy pills that dont always
solve the problem? Its just something to think about. How can companies making large
amounts of money off of selling and prescribing these meds not be somewhat biased towards,
well, selling as many as possible, even if it wont fix anything, only quickly mask some
symptoms?
Jon Ronson, writer, journalist, and documentary filmmaker, is the author of the book
The Psychopath Test. In his book he attempts to understand the world of psychopathy and

how people are labeled as such. While interviewing a former asset stripper named Al Dunlap,
Jon uncovered a truth about psychopathy and labeling in general:
So whenever he said anything to me that just seemed kind of non-psychopathic, I
thought to myself, well I'm not going to put that in my book. And then I realized
that becoming a psychopath spotter had turned me a little bit psychopathic.
Because I was desperate to shove him in a box marked psychopath. I was
desperate to define him by his maddest edges. And I realized, oh my God. This is
what I've been doing for 20 years. And this is a country that over-diagnoses
certain mental disorders hugely. Childhood bipolar -- children as young as four
are being labeled bipolar because they have temper tantrums, which scores them
high on their bipolar checklist. (Ronson)
This world is so focused on making everything black and white, that many times it does
not even acknowledge the existence of grey. Just because a man is manipulative and cunning
does not mean he is a psychopath, maybe that is just how he is, how he has always been. Just
because a woman is distraught does not mean she suffers from depression that requires a
prescription, maybe she is just upset or has hit a rough patch. The use of labeling does not
identify with the grey area that exists with everyone having a little bit of quirkiness to them.
Instead it seems as though every small flaw is translated into a generalization that may stick
forever. A simple diagnosis may be the easy way out, but what needs to be chosen is the correct
decision. Until that grey area is given a proper amount of focus, this confusion will exist and
remain prevalent. Not everything you see can be defined in terms of black and white, which is
exactly what the labeling of individuals unfortunately does.

Works Cited
Adams, Mike S., et al. "Labeling And Delinquency." Adolescence 38.149 (2003): 171.
MasterFILE Premier. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.

Clarke, Walter V. "THE PROBLEM OF LABELING: The Semantics Of Behavior." ETC: A

Review Of General Semantics 55.4 (1998): 404. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 11
Apr. 2015.

Greenfield, Liah. "The Real Trouble With DSM-5." Psychology Today. Syssex
Publlishers, n.d. Web. 12 Apr. 2015.

Jackson, Jay W., and Jason Rose. "The Stereotype Consistency Effect Is Moderated By
Group Membership And Trait Valence." Journal Of Social Psychology 153.1
(2013): 51. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 12 Apr. 2015.

Lesse, Stanley. "The Uncertain Future Of Clinical Psychiatry." American Journal Of

Psychotherapy 40.1 (1986): 4. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 12 Apr. 2015.

Moon, Kathryn. "The Evolution of the DSM and Some Implications for Clinicians'
Practice." The Evolution of the DSM and Some Implications for Clinicians'
Practice. The British Psychological Society, n.d. Web. 12 Apr. 2015.

Poland, Jeff. "Deeply Rooted Sources of Error and Bias in Psychiatric Classification."
Deeply Rooted Sources of Error and Bias in Psychiatric Classification. MIT
Press, n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2015.

Ronson, Jon. "Strange Answers to the Psychopath Test." TED Conferences, n.d. Web.
12 Apr. 2015.