The career of the mentally ill: an integration of psychiatric, labeling/social construction, and lay perspectives

This paper provides a new way of conceptualizing the career of the mentally ill. Most persons who experience an episode of a serious mental disturbance lead a normal life, while a few persons lead lifetimes that revolve around their mental disorders. The processes leading to either result can only be understood by integrating the traditional labeling and psychiatric perspectives with lay understandings of the concepts of "mental illness" and "nervous breakdowns." A selection of key concepts from these perspectives leads to a better understanding of the different paths persons take as they move through the pre-patient, inpatient, and post-patient phases of the "career of the mentally ill." This perspective makes understandable a number of counterintuitive relationships. For example, it explains why most hospitalized mental patients (1) have a negative stereotype of the "mentally ill," (2) do not perceive themselves as "mentally ill, yet (3) perceive themselves as benefiting from treatment, and (4) do not progress into a career of secondary deviance.     

Can sociology be a science?: The issue of gender and sex-dimorphic characteristics

In spite of the fact that much of the work done by sociologists is of high quality, there appears to be a pervasive sense among sociologists that as a field sociology is not developing an accumulating base of knowledge that involves a combination of theory and empirical “facts.” Social constructs are a basic component of most human behavior, and such behaviors cannot be understood without attention to the nature of those social constructs. However, humans are also biological beings, their biological attributes are relatively stable, and variations in these attributes often have a strong effect on behavior. It is also the case that what persons experience and how they behave has an effect on their biological attributes. We suggest that if sociologists were attentive to the interactions of biological attributes and social constructs, sociologists would be in a position to develop a constantly expanding base of scientific social knowledge. As an illustrative example, we have focused on the issue of how gender and sex-dimorphic characteristics are intrinsically interrelated.     

The effect of sex role differences on the societal reaction to mental retardation

This paper investigates the thesis that sex role definitions in the U.S. support a double standard in societal reactions to mental incompetence. Role expectations for women are such that females are generally expected to be less competent than males in a variety of instrumental tasks, although perhaps more expressive. Males in turn are expected to be more active and aggressive than females in their exercise of the greater power and responsibility ascribed to them. In light of these generalized expectations we suggest that incompetence in instrumental fields is more disturbing when demonstrated by males, and we hypothesize that societal reactions to the mental deficiencies of males are more prompt and severe. The paper supports this hypothesis with data suggesting that mentally retarded males are more likely to be institutionalized than retarded females, and that males tend to be institutionalized at earlier ages and for milder disorders. It is noted that these data are consistent with previously reported data on mental illness.     

Sociobiology misses the mark: An essay on why biology but not sociobiology is very relevant to sociology

This essay takes the position that sociologists need to pay more attention to biology, but that the biological perspective provided by sociobiology is not the perspective that is the most relevant. The reductionist nature of sociobiology is noted and the treatment by sociobiology of altruism, religion, homosexuality, the maximization of inclusive fitness, group versus individual inheritance, and the genetic inheritance process itself is critiqued. Sociobiology’s strong emphasis on ultimate causation and the denigration of proximate causation is treated as particularly problematic. The paper ends with a plea that sociologists pay more attention to the research that shows the interactional effects of biological, psychological and social processes. Best known for his work on mental illness and on gender and marital roles, he also has published extensively in the area of family, crime, and aging. While an undergraduate student in the 1950s, he was trained in biology and has had a strong interest in biological issues since that time.