Literally, "make into a
disease" (
cf.
pathology) This does not refer to an advanced
genetic engineering practice, but rather to categorizing an observable
phenomenon as
abnormal and
detrimental enough to be considered disease-like.
Some pathologization is
objectively-based and
unproblematic. For example, we have observed that when exposed to certain
microorganisms, people frequently begin experiencing
diarrhea leading to severe
dehydration and, without treatment,
death (see
cholera). There is little question that this is an
undesirable imbalancing of ordinary processes, hence, a
disease.
However, some
states or
behaviors are only
pathological relative to their cultural
environment. The
paradigmatic example of this is
homosexuality: Prior to the 12th century, it was common for men to have sex with other men without being
labeled or
condemned in any way. Around this time, however, the
Church and other institutions began opposing homosexuality, and by the early 20th century it was considered a deviance, a
civil crime, and a
sin against
God. Until 1974, homosexuality was officially listed as a
mental illness in the
DSM, the diagnostic manual of the psychiatric profession. Today, American society is in the process of depathologizing homosexuality again.
An interesting example in the
medical world is
deafness. Doctors traditionally considered this a severe disability, to be
ameliorated or treated in any way possible. But as
neurological implants and genetic engineering have started to offer hope (still unrealized) of eliminating deafness, people in the deaf community have responded negatively to this view. They claim that their culture of
sign language and elimination of
aural cues is a
legitimate way of life, which deserves neither
pity nor pathologization. Lack of hearing is something most people automatically consider a
frank disability. Regardless of your own opinion, the reaction of many
activists (who by no means speak for all deaf people) raises questions about the nature of disease, the language of medical culture, and who gets to make the rules.
Currently, there is a
lively debate regarding the extent to which most
mental disorders should be pathologized, and to what extent our existing categories for them are
valid. The writer at the forefront of the anti-pathology movement is
Thomas Szasz. Another discussion involves the extent to which
addiction is a distinct disorder, as opposed to an extreme but
qualitatively normal behavior. The figurehead for this movement is
Stanton Peele.