You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
The author finds fault with recent definitions by several psychiatrists of the term 'normal', which make it identical with Burrow's 'social reaction—average'. He suggests Burrow's 'objective norm' based on 'phylobiological' requirements. Instead of merely 'adjusting a nonconforming individual to any culture he happens to be in', it would produce a 'shift in emphasis to the revision of
the culture as a whole' and would make possible the characterization of a given culture by referring it to the history of culture.
Both the criticism and the suggestion are well taken. Attention is called, however, to the fact that dynamic psychiatry has been doing what the 'phylobiologists' suggest: (1) It is studying the individual and helping him to adjust to his culture, only in so far as the latter is not inimical to, but allows satisfaction of his needs for self-expression and growth. (2) It is, in collaboration with other sciences such as anthropology, studying our culture and comparing it with others both of today and of the past. (3) It is, one the above basis, in collaboration with educators, sociologists, psychologists, economists, and political scientists, suggesting modifications of our culture designed to meet more adequately the needs of individuals in it.
The search for the criteria of normality is a worth-while one, but a search for absolute standards is bound to lead to frustration, since even within a given culture at a given time for a given individual, behavior which is normal today in response to one set of circumstances may tomorrow, under new circumstances, be very abnormal.