Abandon the concept of normality in psychiatric diagnosis

What is it about?

This article challenges the idea that psychiatry needs to define “normal” more clearly. Instead, it argues that the whole concept of normality does more harm than good. Drawing on history, anthropology, and disability studies, the piece shows how “normal” has often been used to judge, exclude, and pathologize people who don’t fit mainstream expectations. Rather than helping to diagnose mental health issues, the idea of normal tends to label difference as illness. The article calls for a new approach—one that focuses on individual experience, social context, and wellbeing, instead of measuring people against a rigid idea of what’s “normal.”

Featured Image

Photo by Kerem Özyurt on Unsplash

Photo by Kerem Özyurt on Unsplash

Why is it important?

What makes this work timely is the growing recognition that mental health exists along a spectrum and can’t be reduced to rigid categories. As more researchers and clinicians adopt dimensional approaches—like those used in the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC)—this article urges the field to leave behind the false authority of the “normal” altogether. By questioning the assumptions built into psychiatric language, this commentary helps open the door to more inclusive, context-aware, and ethical ways of understanding mental health. It speaks to anyone interested in rethinking how we care for minds and the people who have them.

Perspectives