This thesis deals with the questions what medicalization is and how it affects children and adolescents and which behaviour is considered disruptive because it is not in accordance with the social norms set by the medical community. Defining or rather naming, diagnosing, understanding and treating disruptive behaviour derives from the medical discourse that has the tendency to turn more and more social, relationship, cultural, political as well as economic problems into a disorder or a disease. Thus, the medical community can exert its social power and take over the role of a moral guide and determine what is socially acceptable and what is not, what is normal and what pathological. With this classifying and attributing certain diagnosis and etiquettes, we get to the point where a child or an adolescent is no longer considered or understood as being normal, but rather classified as abnormal and becomes stigmatised. From that moment on, deviant behaviour presents an individual’s position in the society; they are deprived of power since they are no longer considered as an equal part of the society. Once a person is labelled problematic or pathological, it is difficult to escape that kind of perception. Therefore, diagnoses are a special kind of categorization, which separates the wanted and the unwanted. In the name of power, a sophisticated system of supervision and control is being established over children and adolescents, and as a result, classification oftentimes introduces discrimination and stigmatization. It is important to stress that deviant behaviour is always determined by the social environment; with other words, it is defined by those who are bothered by a certain behaviour and have the power to characterize the behaviour as disruptive. Contrary to this, the people whose behaviour is labelled as disruptive do not recognise their own behaviour as such. When talking about the medicalization of children and adolescents, we have to be aware of the fact that it is a very sensitive subject, since many voices are ignored at such a young age. The ability of making a decision is often taken away from the young, as the adults in their lives can intervene on their behalf legally and according to their own social perceptions. In understanding this ever-growing phenomenon that increasingly treats non-medical causes of deviant behaviour as a medical problem, it is important to know the historical background of medicalization and the models as well as discourses which have developed and are now forming around the complex phenomenon of medicalization of deviant behaviour. These are namely the medical discourse and the discourse of personal guilt, which both fall into the disability discourse group, since they can determine that a person is disabled and make them a subject of various medical expert assessments. In using the medical model, which utilises a simplified individualistic explanation about the origin of the deviant behaviour, many other important factors that can significantly affect the development and the preservation of the deviant behaviour get overlooked. Medicalization presents a convenient excuse for ignoring problems, and exploiting personal guilt helps silence voices who ask unwanted questions, e.g. questions about violence, sexual assault, rape, sexism, racism, inequality, lack of prospects, etc. Further use of medicalization can transform many social questions, which ought to be addressed collectively, into individual problems that are taken out of context. Thus, the responsibility of a wide range of social actors is decreased and children and adolescents expressing distress and resistance get labelled as disruptive.
|
