However, we often identify the mentally ill by their non-adherence to regulations and social norms. Adherence suggests a commonly held delusion that therefore cannot appear delusional (old idea, Foucault, Guattari, etc., etc.): thus it is arguable that society is a kind of mental illness that is not dysfunctional (fingers crossed).

Yes it certanly does, I suggest that your read my book, accessible in my profile, it is already a bit old, but the situation has not changed, see: Nardi, H.C. "Ética, Trabalho e Subjetividade", Porto Alegre, Ed. UFRGS, 2006. Also, the work of Margarida Barreto and her group describes the effets of harassment: http://www.assediomoral.org/spip.php?rubrique31

However, we often identify the mentally ill by their non-adherence to regulations and social norms. Adherence suggests a commonly held delusion that therefore cannot appear delusional (old idea, Foucault, Guattari, etc., etc.): thus it is arguable that society is a kind of mental illness that is not dysfunctional (fingers crossed).

Yes, Scott, I totally agree,

But the adaptation of workers in workspaces and its rules and regulations is one of the most common current requirements.

So that a worker who is extremely adaptable, but with the characteristics of affective blunting and loss of ethical sense with time, even being adaptable, which organizations tend to see with good eyes and can get sick workspaces and sicken yourself, becoming robotic and assuming the rules and regulations for its letter, without evaluation its spirit, imposing burdens on other members of team and harassment. This causes organizations fail to learn, not able to create.

This phenomenon in the clinical area is termed as normopathia and normosis, illness linked to affective blunting and loss of creativity and strict adherence to the standard.

Thus, the worker tends to be the standard worker, but it ends up being bad for you and the team working concurrently for organizations.

This phenomenon and its description in organizations that have cared in research terms.

 Very interesting issue at a time when the tension between subjectivities and norms crashes subjectivities , but it can be returned into an awakening that norms must be consented and coelaborated by the subject not to crash the lie of norms against security that transforms subjectivity into subjection , this was already a theme defended by Polayni

Exceptional, Mylene! Polanyi and his economic sociology had a key precursor analysis work, which was not accepted by the industrial economy of the time, the relationship between economy, society and culture, which meant, for sure, the question of subjectivity and involvement of the individual and their imbricated economic actions, linked, in the words of Polanyi, embedded in the economy.

He, then, outlines a critical role, perhaps "transgressor", solidarity and social trust in the defense of individuals in social and economic terms process, which can also be applied to the subjectivation process that does not become subjection then.

Thank you!

thank you , Ill try and find your book.

best

There is quite some empirical evidence concerning burnout, PTSD, depression, and long term stress  effects on people who are trying to meet conflicting social, economic, and cultural etc. pp. expectations on the job and who have high expectations concerning their performance. The same is also true for whistle blowers...

The debate on moral injury seems to be a fruitful one to address the issue, too.

Certainly there may be an empirical link between mental illness and overly strict adherence to unwritten social norms or formal rules of behaviour. But one has to distinguish sharply between these two forms of behavioral constraints. Essentially, the difference between them is their kind of legitimacy. While every form of social structure needs some boundary conditions to define its membership and goals, these conditions can be realized in a more or less legitimated form.

I suggest that the link between individual acceptance and collective rules depends on the degree of the formal legitimacy of the referring rules. Formal legitimacy, furthermore, corresponds with publicy known procedures on how to establish behavioral constraints. The more some behavioral constraint relies on such publicly and hence formally treated techniques of decision taking, the lesser risky it will be to find the "subordinates" with an inner disagreement up to the point of mental illness.

Of course, there are exceptions of this thumb rule. For instance, the so called "Nuremberg laws" under the Nazis in Germany, which banned Jews almost completely  from all public life, were formally instantiated laws. But, looking closer, it reveals that the Nazi society of that time itself was under permanent emergency rule, so that the normal ways to produce legitimate laws were suspended.

So, by and large, I stick to the forementioned thumb rule that the acceptance of social norms depends largely on the formal legitimacy of these norms. The most important criterion for socially established behavioral constraints to be individually accepted is its consistency, i.e. seamless embedding, in the surrounding set of formally agreed rules.

Eventually, almost all acceptance of social norms is a question of structural consistency.

It is 1:00 am. You are stopped at a red light. There is no cross traffic. Do you remain until the light changes?

Haha, Scott, exactly this happened to me some years ago in Sicily: I had stopped at a red light in the middle of nowhere around midnight without any other soul in sight. The red light didn't change. Suddenly, an Italian driver appeared behind me (he couldn't overhaul me on the street) and started honking. After a while, he furiously rushed on the sidewalk and scooted away over the junction; obviously he didn't bear to wait one more second. While passing by my window, he raised his fist towards me. The lights changed only when he was already a long time out of sight.

Of course, this is funny - as long as it happens at midnight somewhere in remote Sicily. But this man didn't act justified, at least not in the common meaning of "justified". Because - and certainly - if he or a relative of him would be the victim of his own behaviour in a different situation, he would equally furious about the "mad man passing the junction at red light" as he was when breaking the rule towards me. That means, guys like him presumably accept the rules in general, but only follow them if it's benefitting them. That's unacceptable, isn't it? - If anybody had a reason to get "mentally ill" in this situation, it's me (I'm kidding), not because I felt deeply oppressed by the rules, but rather to the contrary: because the other one did not submit to his own principles.

I think that the question is whether somebody has some evidence that shows that the social norms may have such an effect. In the absence of the evidence, opinions may be interesting to hear, but with the arguments, please.

Yet to say « mental illness » is inappropriate. (I would adhere to the old classification.) We are probably talking about a personality disorder, a behavioral disturbance.

If you want this to be “mental illness”, then we are talking about the extreme social norms, like the “norms” that we could find in prisons or war situations and then I think this is the other matter and the answer is certainly “yes”. But let us remain by moderate, normal social norms.

I must remind you then that there is no evidence that the social norms may produce, even in a person with some labile personality traits, some personality disorders. They may probably facilitate some disorders to appear and become more visible.

However, if somebody thinks that there is evidence that this may happen, please give us the references. But no “books” please. The studies that offer evidence would be more appropriate. Not raw opinions, please.

Scott

O.K., good questions, Scott. The answer will help define what the question is.

Let us assume that there is no police around, this is important, because we talk about social norms. All discussion that may refer somehow to the possibility of retribution should be eliminated.

The answer: In Amsterdam and Paris you cross immediately. In Germany you wait until the green light comes. (If there is a policeman standing close to the crossing in France and Holland, this will probably do not make much of a difference.)

The other example: in Manchester you wait in a 500m long line, one by one, for a bus. In Paris you make a group around the place where the front door of the bus will be.

Let us define this then: in Amsterdam the social norms dictate that you cross the street; in Germany that you do not. One norm demands an action, the other demands that you do not act. If you would then stick firmly to the norm and if you would in general stick to such norms absolutely, would this be a sign of a mental disturbance? I think yes, this would be a kind of obsessive-compulsive behavior. But, in principle these are not the norms that make us obsessive-compulsive. Our obsessive-compulsive personality makes us behave in such disturbed way and interpret the norms in the way we interpret them.

In my amateur opinion, mental illness can be a way of coping with perception, experience and trauma. If it makes me feel okay to wait for the light to change, then my delusion helps me. But that doesn't mean that it isn't a delusion.

Scott

If I would in Amsterdam be found waiting for the light to change to green at 2 p.m. although the street is very narrow and there is absolutely no traffics at all - I am probably on my way back from a pub or have personality disorder; or may even have some mental illness.

But I think if I had some mental illness I might be found to wait for the traffic light to change; yet my waiting for the traffic light to change would not make me mentally ill. I lived in Germany for over 14 years, waited for all possible traffic lights to turn green in similar circumstances and apparently remained quite normal.

Dragan,

having spent good parts of my life in Germany I can only agree with you :-).

In this discussion, whe have to distinguish between the normative and the psychological side of the topic. As a philosopher, I am only competent with the normative aspect of it. This means, all psychological aspects remain untouched by my remarks.

Dear Sirs,

This topic is even heated, but the things that bring me are extremely relevant:

Scott, normativity, in psychological terms can be inductive of behaviors yes, because group pressures shaping behaviors at certain times and situations (Philip Zimbardo studies in context that has nothing to do with war and Milgram on normative behavior ).

My studies are restricted to the organizational area (and, incidentally, the business world is like competing organizations and competitors, so the relationship is understood to war), which gives me alignment with what Dragan brings in.

Dragan, I do not care to mental illness, but in reality the disease process, social pressures stemming from social norms (here understood those not formalized, but rather require a certain term, the presence of legitimacy, as quoted by Wolfgang) bullying, and the rules spelled out in manuals and codes, which could be understood as guidelines, are understood only as subject to rigid application of punishments, restricting the use of much practical intelligence and producing losses in terms of subjectivity of the individual worker, it ceases to be recognized and valued which makes it subject that is their way of doing things and solving problems.

In this sense, it develops the process of loss of autonomy, loss of creativity and sense of loss of job, reduced self-esteem, producing distorted perceptions and possibly leading the individual to the beginning of a depressive process.

So either the guy creates a breastplate and adheres to the rule as a way to escape this suffering and gradually can become a perverse, or it does not stick and trying suolucionar conflict remains alone for the loss of confidence that comes from within the group itself, which can lead ultimately to suicide.

It is these aspects that I would like to address this topic well and I agree with Dragan that empirical studies should appear to give greater visibility to these aspects.

Ah, we are getting quite busy, I cannot engage immediately with all arguments. I think the question concerns the social norms only. So Zimbardo’s experiment or Milgram’s experiment are, no doubt not concerned with “normal” social norms but tried to mimic the extreme situations. As I said, there is a lot of evidence that the extreme situations induce in normal persons all possible varieties from neuroses to psychoses and this is really not problematic. I propose to remain with the social norms that are in some realistically imaginable cultural frames or realistic professional surroundings. Well, we may include those from hospitals, ICUs, atomic power stations to military or police departments, but all in some “normal” range of hardship or discipline that is not extreme. I know that this may be relative, but since the extremes are not problematic, I think we should let such circumstances aside.

Marcelo

I see now, you may be wanted to see where is the limit, between “normal” social norms and the “extreme” social norms? Yes, this is inverse of what I thought. If the adhering to some social norms will induce from neuroses to some acute delirium or even acute or chronic psychotic states, then we can draw the line between “normal” and the “extreme” social norms. I only do not know which deep question is hiding there? Could you restate the question, please?

Dragan:  You make the important notation that norms vary from place to place. I'd like to make the case that normal cannot be defined by fish living in an aquarium and forced to rebreathe their own filth. The system is not open enough to define what true normal is, and by extension, what mental illness is. In some middle-eastern countries it is normal to behead people for insulting the Prophet while in westernized countries it is not. How would you define the mental health of those persons who do the beheadings? Or those who live in fear for their beliefs? Are we defining mental illness in terms of cultural norms or can we find a wider definition for sanity? Is it possible (as Scot Russell suggested) that social norms are but a collective dumbing down to maintain a sense of order, in the teeth of greater unknowns? Certainly the lowering of  group members' IQ inside the system would be recognized as normal, but what about persons with a wider perview?

Dragan,

Yes, actually I performed studies where organizational environment to be highly competitive, even within teams, tends to make people focus on their own interests, not emerging collaboration, denying information to others, including for fear of being supplanted and distrust of other team members.

Organizations have prescribed rules and groups, teams, develop their social norms, standards of living, which are not written but are practiced.

Faced with the need to follow social norms and standards prescribed that are necessary to organize the work, the subject attempts to create but sometimes ends not being recognized for your contribution or be against the rules, when not observed, into the management process, the spirit of the rules but their strict observance, or for being inappropriate to the group (restriction presented by the group not prescribed social norms).

So one of the aspects that the organization is expected of the employee's creativity, innovation and performance improvement, which at times clashes with the rules, even though they conflict with the spirits of the standards.

So as not to be penalized the individual meets the standards, not creating and becoming an automaton, almost a machine, which is, in a sense, expected of him, since he has to follow the dictates of prescriptions.

Entrentanto this process, which is what interests me at the moment, can become exacerbated, leading to normopatia (which would be like a compulsion to follow the rules and charge others to follow them strictly, but not with the interest of fulfilling desired by the standard but purely by way of the standard, by its letter and its strict observance by your letter.

And, on the other hand, those who do not adhere undergo processes of mental distress because they feel inadequate and have low self-esteem to the point of not feeling useful and acquire a neurosis, paranoia or psychosis developed.

I then important to understand this process and notice if, with a more collaborative environment where there is trust between people, this process would be different.

This is a study to try to accomplish.

The question emerging is "Strict adherence to compliance with organizational regulations and social norms can lead to mental illness? Could cause affective blunting and loss of sense of ethics? Could be because of increased harassment in organizations?"

I think the short answer is probably 'yes,' but only cause mental illness in those unable to 'go-with-the-flow,' hence the dumbing-down effect for not questioning authority by those still able to think for themselves. Is blind obedience a mental illness? Are thugs mentally ill or just lower IQ? If moral or functional retardism could be cured, would IQ improve?

Dean,

Thank you for your quote!

I really think that a simple and short 'yes', isn't possible. There are many variables to be studied. but it is not blind obedience, but an obedience "won" from a mode of disk management, co-opting practice for the management of fear or organizational discourse that resemble to that Nazi propaganda that can "distort" reality, appearing to improve conditions when all this, in a highly competitive environment, is not possible.

Blind obedience is one thing and another is restricted membership.

I see that the issue is in understanding the question, which is not obedience in the sense studied by Milgram, but an adherence to social norms, roles outlined the context and distorted by the existing way communication in organizations. It is very much an adherence to the subject is exposed than mere observance and obedience to the rules.

Marcelo:

Well then you answered your own question and I don't disagree with you. Reward & punishment, Pavlovian responses. There's a completely different dynamic with volunteers who share a common goal vs. a what's-in-it-for-me paradigm. We've all known bad managers who fail to reward employees or just otherwise create hostile working conditions. Also there are good rules and bad rules determined by the level of enlightenment of the writer. I wouldn't study it too long, that it exists almost goes without saying.

Dean

May be ALSO conditioning, you are right (not Pavlovian but Skinner’s operant conditioning, Pavlov did not use punishment).

However, to be able to analyze it, we need to exclude the extreme situations, as I insisted earlier.

Dragan: Thank you for the correction, yes, Skinner, conditioning. These social pressures over time are learned and integrated by group members as a new 'normal' by necessity, when issues of survival are at stake, but this also depends upon the paradigms assumed and practiced. I don't know what you mean by 'extremes,' that word is relative. If you look far enough you will always find sub-cultures or groups of people where a given extreme practice is deemed to be 'normal,' i.e. justified as being necessary, desireable, etc. The question is, are these (sub) cultures sane or could they be classified as mentally ill? Certainly group members will label anyone who objects, rejects or rebels against the standard as being mentally ill, but it's like the cookware accusing each other of being burnt.

Dean

You are right, this is relative.

However, we know positively, if the obedience to some rules is stressful, and if the stress is extreme (war, natural catastrophe and similar) some people - and as the stress is higher, more people, suffer from mental disturbances. As I understand the question this is NOT the subject of interests here, but the adherence to the socially accepted rules in “normal” societies or organisations like post office, police, normal factories or even army but not in war. Well there, we have various grades of adherence to the rules between the members of those communities. I understood the question refers there to the probability that if such rules are enforced too strongly or accepted by some people blindelly, would those that accept to “obey” run the risk of mental illness (“mental illness in a modern sense of the term).

I think that if the rules are enforced with too much power they may resemble the “extreme” stress and will come in the category that I explained above. If on the contrary, the subjects accept to obey excessively, they may suffer even too much and even sink in mental illness, particularly if they already have kind of fragile personalities.

As I said, it is interesting to explore this in some controlled study. I am certain that similar studies exist and they probably are designated as the “stress studies” and as such probably were overseen by our friend Marcelo.

Dragan: All your points are well taken. I would just like to add that certain neurotic types are quite comfortable and do very well under circumstances of severe rule-making, as it frees them from the necessity to think or take responsibility for one's self. They may in fact BE mentally ill but never be so diagnosed, because they follow orders.

Dear,

In considering that there are factually inflated regulations or not, social norms, by itself, did not demonstrate strong to effectively make them compliant people. Are further intervening factors, such as the need to use for maintenance before little training or even a family that depends on the worker only.

This question makes him a possible hostage of management by fear performed in hypermodernity, which uses a subjectivity capture and speeches that make the subject feel stuck, even suffering, to the organization.

This is how the employee feels compelled to "tolerate", change himself or make it their behavior that is foreign and suffering cause, but for that he tends to rationalize to the maximum and trying to reduce what is suffering to nothing. This strategy makes it less affection propitious and feel suffering, but implies an illness by moving away from the reality, which is, in itself, full of suffering be provided with constantly changing, requiring adaptation that occurs in cognitive and affective levels.

This suffering can take stereotypical normality air and therefore characteristic of exacerbated suffering that can not be effectively linked to the context of war, even in the organizational context, it tends to understand how war disputes between competitors.

Marcelos:

You have just described my early childhood and adolescence, never mind the work environment. I have no disagreement with anything you said. I was only suggesting that there are truly mentally ill people who are never diagnosed because they follow orders willingly and without question, They may even BE the cause of the problem. I'm thinking of some people who participated in the nazi party or other pograms, and then blended in with society, their normalcy never questioned. I think your question has other dimensions than the one you asked, which still deals with suffering, oppression, and mental illness.

Thanks Dean,

You really understood my question. I am searching others variables inherent to the problem.

I think it is not so simple than described.

I suppose that your words may be important to design my research. Thank you!

Marcelo:

I do believe that all conflicts are caused by cultural differences. A culture is a group of people's way of doing things, based upon a set of beliefs, shared paradigms. But there are always members (and of course, outsiders) who challenge those paradigms. The challenge to the culture then becomes, how to handle the dissidents, how to enforce obedience, discipline, compliance. Individuals can have value to the group, the group doesn't want to lose that value, even if the individuals are miserable. The group has a standard, what is considered normal. If the assumption is say, "Life is hard," then the comfort/satisfaction of group members is treated callously. Likewise if the notion is "Life is easy" ...then members do all in their power to make it so. There can be class stratification where members of a same culture are still treated as lower class. I think the problem isn't maybe so complex, but hearkens to a concept of specialness & priviledge, ego, "betterness" and more deserving.

Yeah Dean,

But the idiosyncrasies are many, despite the cultural differences, there are issues that cause people exposed to the same group and cultural conditions get enough individual treatment of all issues.

One big question is how differences occur in organizations for people sick in one way and other differently by numerous adverse conditions to which they are exposed in work organization.

Another key question is how the seduction arising by the relentless pursuit of recognition is that as people become unconditional part of the issues that the organization wants, even if it does so sick and suffering in social, psychological and physical terms?

I thank you very the contribution that everyone has given to this topic.

the tensio between nors and subjectivity is at the core of ethical and political philosophy tody especially in gender and postcolonial studies but aloso in critical bioethics.it has been true since arendt's concept of plurality as a cure to the banality of evil wich consist in trading social  recognition over integrity . the fact that we are born depedent of the love of others to survive can ve changed but what arendt calls natality which s the capacity and the risk  of freing  oneself from norms one does not share as a moral intuition .

I watched the movie "Automata" with Antonio Banderas & Melanie Griffith. In the movie the robots built to serve man, begin to wake up and exert independence. It is a good fiction metaphor reflecting the risks and struggles to be free in a society that sacrifices sanity for short-term pragmatism.

Thank you Monica,

That viewpoint is very useful and points to a problem in other hands of my investigation.

But this is a very interesting meaning to analyse at a sociological and anthropological comprehension, that goes on to the psychological consequences to a subjectivation process.

Bonjour

l Would aqree with the argument n'abatl would add attire time   the temptation to rely

on algorithms to think for you  almost presented as rational We are Facing other Forms

of totalitartan contexts that tequlke the courage of hope  human capacity  think

In pxcessual Ontological terms that  resist slngularity

Bonjour Mylene,

Je suis désolé pour le langage faible.

Vous avez raison.

Il ya une certaine relation qui est ce que je suis étudiant pendant environ trois ans.

Cette relation est pas aussi directe, mais beaucoup plus procédurale et dépendent d'un certain nombre de variables de fond.

Je dirais que phénoménologiquement est plus compréhensible à cette question, car il est non seulement la question ontologique de la procédure, mais aussi des faits psychologiques qui seraient plus présents dans les aspects de la subjectivité, de manière plus métaphysique.

Alors, quand il vient à l'éthique, nous pouvons voir ontiquement et ontologiquement la présence d'un totalitarisme, à des moules décrits par Hannah Arendt, plus voilé que possible, imprégné par le discours idéologique afin de faire comprendre plus prise par affection et induire adhésion "aveugle" aux normes décrites ou les normes sociales, même non prescrits, mais consensuelles.

Hello Mylene,

I'm sorry for the weak language.

You are right.

There is a certain relationship that is what I am studying for about three years.

This relationship is not as direct, but much more procedural and depend on a number of background variables.

I would say that phenomenologically is understandable that question, because it is not only the ontological question of the procedure, but also psychological facts that are present in most aspects of subjectivity, more metaphysical.

So when it comes to ethics, we can see ontically and ontologically the presence of totalitarianism in molds described by Hannah Arendt, more veiled as possible, impregnated by the ideological discourse in order to understand more taken by affection and induce "blind" adherence to standards described or social norms, even those not prescribed, but consensual.

 Merci de votre reponse ,

j'ecrivais sur mon telephone et je n'etais pas tres clair .

the new tyranny it seems to me is our adherence to technological facts that go much beyond our algorithmic capacity to analyse and some predict us a future of coakroaches in front of romotized minds that would "think " more quickly than we do" so it seems very important tome against the ideology of singularity and thanshumanism to rething of a processual ontology as described by Ernst bloch since Hope is an affective feature of humanity that allows us to resist and imagine . Obedience is the loss of hope in our caoacity to think .

 best

sorry for the typos I meant robotized minds and  capacity to think. taking this from us transforms us into things

an ethical issue is the way medical students are trained to obey on a paternalistic model their "mentors" and are sanctionned when they dare to be critical or signal a conflict of values with patients . norms are necessary if they are reflexively adopted...the moocs education will prescribe more easy norms to rememeber but no critical tool box to lean how to say no or I  think....