ADHD: The Story of a Social Construction

Introduction

For as long as society has had social rules and norms, there have been people, “deviants” if you will, who break them. As explained by Becker, deviance is “the infraction of some agreed upon rule” created by society, “deviant behavior is behavior that people so label (39).” In other words, deviance is essentially a social construction. A social construction is a widely held belief that is often value-laden, and allows for the policing, monitoring, and control of deviant behavior (Williams). Social constructions have no reality beyond our understanding of them. In essence, they are what we, society, say they are. Social constructions vary greatly by time, location, context, and by person (Williams).  It is important to remember that science can be skewed by the thoughts, opinions and methods of people performing it. That is to say, "scientific" diagnoses of disorders, like ADHD for example, are not immune to the influence of social constructions of the time in which they arise. As such, it is imperative to examine the emergence of ADHD through the lens of sociology, and more specifically, as a construction of deviance. What is it about society’s social constructions that make the behaviors associated with ADHD so deviant, thereby making ADHD seem rampant throughout society? After conducting such an analysis, one may conclude that the emergence of ADHD as one of the most prevalent "mental disorders" in the United States is a result of our social constructions and society's narrowly defined norms of behavior.

History and Synopsis of ADHD

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is not a new disorder; it has actually been around for many years. A disorder known as the “Hyperkinetic Reaction of Childhood,” characterized by “a short attention span, hyperactivity and restlessness,” appears as early as 1968 ("ADHD: The Diagnostic Criteria"). The disorder was revised to ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1980. This definition focused the diagnosis as a problem primarily with inattention, with the categories of ADD/WO (without hyperactivity) and ADD/H (with hyperactivity).  This concept of ADD/WO has been debated since its inception ("ADHD: The Diagnostic Criteria”). As a result, the diagnosis was redefined to ADHD in 1987 with the issue of the DSM-IIIR, which “consolidated the symptoms into a unidimensional disorder, with no subtypes at all ("ADHD: The Diagnostic Criteria”).” Under this definition an individual could not have the disorder without hyperactivity.  Finally, ADHD as we know it today was conceptualized in 1994 with the publishing of the DSM-IV. The current diagnosis incorporates both inattentive and hyperactive behaviors, and then breaks the diagnosis into categories of predominantly inattentive, predominantly hyperactive or combined ("ADHD: The Diagnostic Criteria”). Due to its prevalence in the media, most people are familiar with the symptoms of ADHD. Currently six or more of the symptoms in the DSM must have been present to a degree that is “disruptive and inappropriate for developmental level” for at least six months ("ADHD, Symptoms and Diagnosis”). They include: “Is often easily distracted,” “often loses things needed for tasks and activities (e.g. toys, school assignments, pencils, books, or tools,” “often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly,” “Often fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in seat when sitting still is expected,” “often does not follow through on instructions and fails to finish schoolwork,” and “Often blurts out answers before questions have been finished.” ("ADHD, Symptoms and Diagnosis”). According to the Center for Disease Control this disorder has been “growing” rapidly, diagnosis increased by an average of 3% every year from 1997-2006 and by an average of 5.5% every year from 2003-2007 ("ADHD, Data and Statistics”).

Current Debate of the Diagnosis

Although this disorder is not new by any means, the recent surge of diagnoses in the United States would indicate that “children went mad” over the last couple decades (Generation Rx). ADHD seems to have become the catch all phrase for disruptive children. Many people feel that blaming ADHD and medicating for it has eclipsed parenting and mentoring. Others feel the disorder over diagnosed, while some think the disorder is a fraud all together.  For example the article, “Are some ADHD-labeled kids just young for their grade?” points to two studies which indicate that some kids on the younger side of the age cut off for their grade are being diagnosed with ADHD when they just have not matured yet. The study found that “being young for [a] grade more than doubles the [chance] that a student is diagnosed with or treated for ADHD (Harmon).” ADHD is allegedly a neurological problem and rates of diagnoses should not change dramatically from one age to the next. Additionally, the film Generation Rx makes several claims that would discredit the prevalence of this disorder. The film purports that this vast and rapid increase is an economic endeavor, not a scientific one.  They claim the drugs used to medicate for ADHD (among other mental disorders like depression) can cause chemical imbalances in children. They also point out the fact that 90% of all Ritalin is consumed in the U.S. and the happy coincidence that 100% of the members of the FDA’s panel on mood and psychotropic drugs have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Rx argues the growth in ADHD can be attributed to greed, corruption, and manipulation of the American public through advertising. These accusations give rise to some very real fears of the over diagnosis of ADHD and over use of drugs to treat it.

On the other hand, there are proponents of the diagnosis who feel that people afflicted with this disorder benefit from a diagnosis and need the treatment that comes with it. One critic to the “backlash” against ADHD is Emily Willingham, saying that ADHD is “a real and often disabling disorder with limited but effective treatment options.” Willingham mostly cites Dr. Harold S. Koplewicz’s rebuke of Dr. L. Alan Sroufe’s claim that ADHD drugs do more harm than good. In addition to Kopelewicz’s supporting argument, Willingham conveys her personal experience with her 9 year-old son experiencing “daily and persistent public humiliation for his ADHD.” She then claims that medication can reduce the behaviors of ADHD which bring on this humiliation and “improve a child’s life (Willingham).” Another well known proponent of ADHD is Dr. Edward Hallowell, founder of “The Hallowell Center” and co-author of “Driven to Distraction.” Dr. Hallowell claims in an interview with “The Revolution News” on ABC that undiagnosed ADHD can ruin your family life, school life, cause unexplained underachievement, lead to prison, cause divorce, unemployment or even addiction. If you could only get the diagnosis you could “skyrocket,” “soar,” and “achieve your goals (Hallowell).” According to Dr. Hallowell, medication for ADHD is “safer than aspirin” if prescribed by a doctor that “knows what they are doing.”

Social Constructions of ADHD

Unfortunately, due to the nature of the human experience it is impossible to know everything for oneself. One cannot be an expert astrophysicist, attorney, architect, brain surgeon, stockbroker, and psychiatrist simultaneously, as performing just one of these professions can be overwhelming. As a result, we are forced to trust in the judgment of experts in their field, and make judgment calls about whom and/or what is credible.  As you can see there is no consensus among “scientific” experts about the nature or validity of ADHD and credible experts on both sides of the issue assert vastly different views. As such, it is difficult to ascertain the reality of the disorder.  In order to better understand the disorder an analysis of the social constructions surrounding it is warranted.

 Within the very definition of criteria for ADHD is a social construction, “developmental level (“ADHD, Symptoms and Diagnosis”).” This refers to how intellectually and behaviorally mature a child is compared to others of the same age. The underlying construction is that children of the same age should all behave the same, and they should behave a certain way. These constructions of age appropriate behavior change constantly throughout time, entirely different behaviors are expected of children now compared to the time of the industrial revolution. Which begs the question; in what socially constructed context do we notice these “deviant” behaviors? Katherine Harmon’s article is chiefly about diagnosis based on grade level. Emily Willingham’s experience points to her 9 year old sons humiliating experience at school or an “environment that require[s] a specific behavioral conformity.” In the interview with Dr. Hallowell ADHD causing problems in school is mentioned frequently. It would seem then, that the answer is school.

The school system is in itself a social construction, one that was “designed, conceived and structured for a different age” during “the intellectual culture of the enlightenment and in the economic circumstances of the industrial revolution (Robinson).” The context of this unnecessary emphasis on adherence to strict behavioral conformity, concepts of behavioral conformity which are created by us, make these behaviors deviant. These inattentive, hyperactive behaviors are mostly noticed in the classroom, during an era that is the most stimulating in history (Robinson). There are constant pulls for attention from video games, computers, movies, sports, and advertising, while academia is a largely unexciting endeavor for most children. Outside of school, the majority of the “symptoms” of ADHD are barely visible. There is no biological requirement for how children should behave. Age is a convenient frame of reference but it is a social construction, which creates problems when society attaches real value to it. The assumptions about how children should act, based on their age, are too narrowly defined by society to account for variations in child development, and children’s personalities, as is made apparent by the current ADHD “epidemic.” 

The CDC states that parents reported 9.5 % of children ages 4-17 (essentially school aged children) have been diagnosed with ADHD, compared to 0.26% for people with diabetes under 20 or 8.3% of the U.S. Population (“ADHD, Diagnostics and Statistcs,” "Overweight and Obesity: Data and Statistics). Which seems more reasonable, that a mental disorder like ADHD is more prevalent than diabetes in a population of people whom 35% are considered obese, or that some flaws in our rigid social constructions of how children behave in classrooms and the current dichotomy of academic and non-academic thinking cause a serious distortion of the ADHD “epidemic.” Instead of diagnosing and medicating our children into conformity, we need to work on fixing the social constructions that give rise to things like ADHD.

Next, I would like to consider the implications of the media and self-diagnosis in the emergence of the Adult ADHD phenomenon. The social construction of the ADHD diagnosis has been perpetuated by the media since its apparent “discovery” in the 90’s. Originally ADHD was a diagnosis reserved for school aged children. But as Conrad and Potter show, it has been medicalized to include adults through claims by the media, professionals and self-diagnosis among lay peoples (138).  Conrad and Potter point out that Dr. Hallowell and Ratey provided a great boost to Adult ADHD in 1994 with their publication of “Driven to Distraction.” They claim that although Hallowell and Ratey’s “affiliation with Harvard Medical School gave them some academic legitimacy,” they approached the area of Adult ADHD more as “entrepreneurs for the adult diagnosis” than as scientific researchers (140). This in combination with popular news clips about the disorder seemed to create a fad of self-diagnosis. “Virtually all children were referred by parents or schools to physicians,” while self-referral is commonplace with adult ADHD. They quote one psychiatrist as saying “Adult ADHD has now become the foremost self-diagnosed condition in my practice. I fear that the condition allows a patient to find a biological cause that is not always reasonable, for job failure, divorce, poor motivation, lack of success, and chronic depression (Conrad and Potter 141).”

It’s frightening how nonchalantly, and often, the diagnosis is tossed around. For example, at the end of the end of the interview with Dr. Hallowell when he diagnosis a woman with ADHD in less than a minute on national television. Allegedly, there is a quiz that can define whether or not you have ADHD. It follows; do you have trouble wrapping up the final details of a project, getting things in order, or remembering appoints and obligations? Do you have trouble procrastinate, do you fidget or squirm when you have to sit still, do you feel overly active? If so you have adult ADHD (Hallowell). These “catch-all” blanket questions are absurd on a prima facie level. However, it is valuable to examine the underlying social constructions they indicate.

All of these questions pertain to being able to be successful in the current economic environment.  At the heart of the issue is the economic imperative, a social construction. “Money has been consecrated as a value in itself, over and above its expenditure for articles of consumption or its use for the enhancement of power (Merton 22).” Given the emphasis on money as a value by society, it is not surprising that people unable to obtain it would willingly take on a diagnosis that compensates for their failure to assimilate. In this case, the social pressure to be successful, and wealth as a principal symbol of success, pressures people into ADHD.

Conclusion

The financial conflicts of interests in the field of psychiatry are astounding, discrediting the ADHD diagnosis. Unfortunately, some people do have ADHD and real problems that stem from the disorder. However, the casualty with which the diagnosis seems given undermines the very real need of treatment for some individuals. The intense marketing campaign and knee-jerk reaction to medicate have caused a rapid over diagnosis and a backlash that the truly afflicted must deal with. The very looseness given to the disorder discredits its validity and can make some people who need help feel like they may not deserve it. All of these issues have deep underlying social constructions, woven into the fabric of our society. While these inherent cultural values and paradigms are not to blame for all ADHD necessarily, their influence in its ubiquity is undeniable.  Furthermore, it may be that the institutions that make the “disorder” noticeable need treating, not necessarily the individual with the disorder.  Word Count: 2283

Becker, Howard. “Labeling Theory.” Readings in Deviant Behavior. Ed. Alex Thio, Thomas Calhoun, Addrain Conyers. Boston, MA: Hanson 2010. 39-41. Print.

Conrad, Peter and Deborah Potter. “The Emergence of Hyperactive Adults as Abnormal.” Readings in Deviant Behavior. Ed. Alex Thio, Thomas Calhoun, Addrain Conyers. Boston, MA: Hanson 2010. 138-143. Print.

Hallowell, Edward. “ADHD Interview with Dr. Hallowell.” The Revolution ABC National News. 22 Mar. 2012. Web/Television Broadcast. <http://www.drhallowell.com/blog/abc-the-revolution-adhd-interview-with-dr-hallowell/>

Harmon, Katherine. “Are Some ADHD-labeled Kids Just Young for Their Grade?” Scientific American. 17 Aug. 2010.Web. 30 Mar. 2012 <http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2010/08/17/are-some-adhd-labeled-kids-just-young-for-their-grade/>

Robinson, Ken, perf. Changing Education Paradigms. RSA Animate, 2010. Youtube.com Film Clip.

Willingham, Emily. “ADHD: Backlash to the Backlash.” Scientific American. 23 Feb. 2012.Web. 30 Mar. 2012 <http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/02/23/adhd-backlash-to-the-backlash/>

"ADHD: The Diagnostic Criteria." Medicating Kids. PBS Frontline. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/medicating/adhd/diagnostic.html>

"ADHD, Data and Statistics." Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/data.html>

"ADHD, Symptoms and Diagnosis." Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. < http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/diagnosis.html>

"Overweight and Obesity: Data and Statistics." Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Web. 29 Apr. 2012. <http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html>

Generation Rx. Dir. Kevin P. Miller. Common Radius Films, 2008. DVD

Merton, Robert. “Strain Theory.” Readings in Deviant Behavior. Ed. Alex Thio, Thomas Calhoun, Addrain Conyers. Boston, MA: Hanson 2010. 21-26. Print.

Williams, Meredith. Washington State University. WSU Vancouver Campus, VMMC Building, Vancouver, WA. 17 Jan 2012. Lecture.

"Live Nude Girls Unite" Review

The documentary film “Live Nude Girls Unite” is about the struggle of “peep show” exotic dancers who try to unionize and obtain workers rights. The main concept pushed by the women in the film was that being a “stripper” was a personal choice and a valid occupation and should be provided the same rights and protections other workers in the labor industry, like say steel workers. I also felt like the film showed the women in more perspectives than just sex workers which had a humanizing effect. One major argument presented by the film was that the assumption that exotic dancers are exploited regardless, due to their occupation, is false. They argue that exotic dancers are exploited due to the oppressive and discriminatory practices used by clubs and owners to control workers. For example, calling in sick would result in them being fired, not given their prescheduled raise, or automatically reduced in wage. Essentially, the women felt that it was the practice of management to prevent them from reaching “top wage.” Women were classified and written into the schedule based on hair color, race and breast size, which they felt was discriminatory and illegal. They also claimed that some clubs classify sex workers as independent contractors to avoid paying wages and unemployment taxes, and constantly ratchet up “stage fees” which is essentially requiring dancers to pay to work. This pressures them to do illegal acts to make the same amount of money. These are the exploitations that the women seek protections from by unionizing. Another argument made in favor of sex work is that it supports families and puts people through college. But it really comes down to personal choice, and whether or not society should be allowed to dictate what people do with their body. I believe “Velvet” said it the best, “this is my body and these are my reproductive organs and I’m going to do with them as I please.” I find this to be the most convincing argument in the film. If an individual wishes to do sex work, and there are people who want the service, it’s really their choice, and they shouldn’t be allowed to be exploited more than anyone else. That being said, I would find it hard to condone a daughter of my own (hypothetically) stripping.  This is not based on the actual validity of sex work, but rather the reality of the stigmatization of sex work, that is I wouldn’t want my child to be stigmatized by society. But if my daughter, or son, made such a personal choice I would want them to be provided the same rights and protections all other workers are.

I would say that the least convincing argument, at the risk of sounding like a sexist pig, would be the complaint about women being scheduled based on breast size, hair color, skin color etc, basically what they look like. Jennifer Wesley states that “dancers must capitalize on the sexual objectification of their bodies. Consequently, money and body are linked in a transactional relationship.” Thus if you are a dancer and you are in effect selling your body (or viewing of it), or allowing another to sell the viewing of your body, it is not unreasonable that bodies that sell more would be scheduled more. In other words if customers are willing to pay more, or visit more often to view a particular breast size, hair color etc, It would follow that people bring more customers in are given more hours. If you were the owner of a stadium and one music act, Metallica, sells more tickets than another band, Tool, why would you book the band that sells less tickets? That really wouldn’t make much business sense. As the women in the film often point out that they are in the industry to make money doing what they see as a valid occupation, so are the club owners. The reality is that some types of music or products, or in this case the image of a nude body, are worth more than others. It could be argued that club owners are merely responding to the demands of the market. If you have a society that values white, blonde, large breasted women, over black, black haired, small breasted woman discrimination in the sex industry is hardly a surprise. What’s more important to point out are the social constructions of what we as society view as the ideal women or man. It is this narrow definition of what an ideal women should be that causes the discrimination. If everyone truly valued each other and all types of people as equal, this problem would not exist in the sex industry.

I would like to be clear, I am not saying that sex workers are objects that you can do with as you please. Using the music example, if someone buys an album, they purchasing the right to listen to the band, they are not purchasing the band, or permission to record the band and sell the recordings. Analogous, if someone pays for a lap dance etc, they are not purchasing the person, or permission to fondle or film the dancer. I think many people have difficulty, in the sex industry, separating the service provided from the one providing the service. Which is how many of the women in the film feel, what they do is just a job, a way to make money like anyone else. The societal construction of sex as a sacred act makes it difficult for many people to separate sex acts from individuals who perform them. This causes stigmatization of the industry which forces people into situations where they are solely seen as objects and not the nuanced people they really are. For example, Dr. DeMello notes that when sex workers are victimized the media focuses on the individual’s occupation as a sex worker, not as a mother, daughter or anything else.

DeMello, Margo. “Humanizing Sex Workers?” Sociological Images. The Society Pages. 12 Oct. 2011.Web. 08 Apr. 2012

Wesely, Jennifer. “Exotic Dancers: Where Am I Going to Stop?” Readings in Deviant Behavior. Ed. Alex Thio, Thomas Calhoun, Addrain Conyers. Boston, MA: Hanson 2010. 203-206. Print

The New Plague

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is not a new disorder; it has actually been around for many years. ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) was added the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1980, and then changed to ADHD in 1987 in the DSM-IIIR, and ADHD as we know it today was conceptualized in 1994 with the publishing of the DSM-IV, which incorporates both inattentive behaviors as well as hyperactive ones, and then breaks the diagnosis into categories of predominantly inattentive, predominantly hyperactive or combined. Most people are familiar with the symptoms of ADHD, generally individuals diagnosed with this disorder are easily distracted, excessively fidgety, interruptive, and often have trouble focusing to an extent that is “disruptive and inappropriate for developmental level.” This disorder has been “growing” rapidly, according the Center for Disease Control diagnosis increased by an average of 3% every year from 1997-2006 and by an average of 5.5% every year from 2003-2007. Originally ADHD was a diagnosis reserved for school aged children, but as Conrad and Potter show, it has been medicalized to include adults through claims by the media, professionals and self-diagnosis among lay peoples¹.

Although this disorder is not new by any means, the recent surge of diagnoses in the United States would indicate that “children went mad” over the last couple decades². ADHD seems to have become the catch all phrase for disruptive children. Many people feel that ADHD and medicating for it has eclipsed parenting and mentoring, is over diagnosed and some think the disorder is a fraud all together.  For example the article, “Are some ADHD-labeled kids just young for their grade?” points to two studies which indicate that some kids on the younger side of the age cut off for their grade are being diagnosed with ADHD when they just aren’t mature yet. The study found that “being young for [a] grade more than doubles the [chance] that a student is diagnosed with or treated for ADHD.” Which is odd since ADHD is allegedly a neurological problem and rates of diagnoses should not change dramatically from one age to the next³. Additionally, the film Generation R_x makes several claims that would discredit the prevalence of this disorder. Claiming that this vast and rapid increase is an economic endeavor, not a scientific one and that the drugs used to medicate for ADHD (among other mental disorders like depression) cause chemical imbalances in our children. They point to the fact that 90% of all Ritalin is consumed in the U.S. and the happy coincidence that 100% of the members of the FDA’s panel on mood and psychotropic drugs have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. R_x argues the growth in ADHD can be attributed to greed, corruption, and manipulation of the American public through advertising⁴. These accusations give rise to some very real fears of the over diagnosis of ADHD and over use of drugs to treat it.

On the other hand, there are proponents of the disorder who feel that people afflicted with this disorder benefit from a diagnosis and need the treatment that comes with it. One critic to the “backlash” against ADHD is Emily Willingham, saying that ADHD is “a real and often disabling disorder with limited but effective treatment options.⁵” Willingham mostly cites Dr. Harold S. Koplewicz’s rebuke of Dr. L. Alan Sroufe’s claim that ADHD drugs do more harm than good. In addition to Kopelewicz’s supporting argument, Willingham conveys her personal experience with her 9 year-old son experiencing “daily and persistent public humiliation for his ADHD.” She then claims that medication can reduce the behaviors of ADHD which bring on this humiliation and “improve a child’s life.” Another well known proponent of ADHD is Dr. Edward Hallowell, founder of “The Hallowell Center” and co-author of “Driven to Distraction.” Dr. Hallowell claims in an interview with “The Revolution News” on ABC that undiagnosed ADHD can ruin your family life, school life, cause unexplained underachievement, lead to prison, cause divorce, unemployment or even addiction. If you could only get the diagnosis you could “skyrocket,” “soar,” and “achieve your goals.” Additionally, according to Dr. Hallowell medication for ADHD is “safer than aspirin” if prescribed by a doctor that “knows what they are doing.”

There seems to be a lot of conflicting information out there about ADHD. The mind numbing amount of information circulating about ADHD and how to treat it, in addition to the various “experts” opposing one another; makes it difficult to ascertain the reality of the disorder. In order to help understand the situation at hand it is worth examining some of the social constructions that lead the diagnoses of ADHD. That is, what is “wrong” with an individual with ADHD compared to the rest of society, and more importantly how, when, and where we notice what is different about individuals with ADHD. If you watch the video in the link above or bother to read any of the other cited articles, you may notice that there seems to be reoccurring environment in almost every discussion, school. Katherine Harmon’s article is chiefly about diagnosis based on grade level. Emily Willingham’s experience points to her 9 year old sons humiliating experience at school or an “environment that require[s] a specific behavioral conformity.” In the interview with Dr. Hallowell ADHD causing problems in school is mentioned frequently. And the diagnostic criteria in the DSM as listed on the CDC website require that an individual’s behavior be “inappropriate for developmental level.” It’s as if the single most important indicator of a child’s development is their “date of manufacture,” i.e. how old they’re or what grade they’re in⁶. There seems to be an unnecessary emphasis on adherence to the strict behavioral conformity that is expected of that age group. It is worth noting that these concepts of behavioral conformity in children are created by us. There is no biological requirement for how children should behave. Sure age is a convenient frame of reference but all in all age is a social construction and the assumptions about how children should act given how old they are created by society. These inattentive, hyperactive behaviors seem to mostly be noticed in the classroom, a social construction itself, in an era that is the most stimulating time in history⁷. There are constant pulls for attention from video games, computers, movies, sports, and advertising. While school (at least to me) is a largely unexciting endeavor during K-12. The CDC states that parents reported 9.5 % of children ages 4-17 (essentially school aged children) have been diagnosed with ADHD, compared to 0.26% for people with diabetes under 20 or 8.3% of the U.S. Population. Which seems more reasonable, that a mental disorder like ADHD is more prevalent than diabetes in a population of people whom 35% are considered obese, or that some flaws in our rigid social constructions of how children behave in classrooms and the current dichotomy of academic and non-academic thinking cause a serious distortion of the ADHD “epidemic.”

 Lastly I would like to consider the implications of the media and self-diagnosis in the emergence of the Adult ADHD phenomenon. Conrad and Potter point out that Dr. Hallowell and Ratey provided a great boost to Adult ADHD in 1994 with their publication of “Driven to Distraction.” They claim that although Hallowell and Ratey’s “affiliation with Harvard Medical School gave them some academic legitimacy,” they approached the area of Adult ADHD more as “entrepreneurs for the adult diagnosis” than as scientific researchers. This in combination with popular news clips about the disorder seemed to create a fad of self-diagnosis. “Virtually all children were referred by parents or schools to physicians,” while self-referral is commonplace with adult ADHD. They quote one psychiatrist as saying “Adult ADHD has now become the foremost self-diagnosed condition in my practice. I fear that the condition allows a patient to find a biological cause that is not always reasonable, for job failure, divorce, poor motivation, lack of success, and chronic depression.⁸” It’s frightening how nonchalantly the diagnosis is tossed around like at the end of the Hallowell interview. Six simple questions and I have adult ADHD. I too have trouble wrapping up projects, getting organized, remembering appointments, procrastinating, have and am overactive.  The truth is most of those things are difficult to do for everyone, but nearly impossible for a much smaller number of people, I have trouble doing these things because following through on projects, being organized, and being disciplined are difficult tasks, while I’m good at these things most of the time, it’s not to say it comes without considerable effort. And I’m sure Dr. Hallowell doesn’t have a vested financial interest in his self founded center for treating mental disabilities or one of his two books on ADHD.

The financial conflicts of interests in the field are astounding and disgusting. Unfortunately, some people do have ADHD and real problems that stem from the disorder. However, the casualty with which the diagnosis seems given undermines the very real need of treatment for some individuals. The intense marketing campaign and nee-jerk reaction to medicate have caused a rapid over diagnosis and a backlash that the truly afflicted must deal with. The very looseness given to the disorder discredits its validity and can make some people who need help feel like they may not deserve it. Furthermore, it may be that the institutions that make the “disorder” noticeable need treating, not necessarily the individual with the disorder.

1, 8 Conrad, Peter and Deborah Potter. “The Emergence of Hyperactive Adults as Abnormal.” Readings in Deviant Behavior. Ed. Alex Thio, Thomas Calhoun, Addrain Conyers. Boston, MA: Hanson 2010. 138-143. Print.

3 Harmon, Katherine. “Are Some ADHD-labeled Kids Just Young for Their Grade?” Scientific American. 17 Aug. 2010.Web. 30 Mar. 2012

6, 7 Robinson, Ken, perf. Changing Education Paradigms. RSA Animate, 2010. Film Clip.

5 Willingham, Emily. “ADHD: Backlash to the Backlash.” Scientific American. 23 Feb. 2012.Web. 30 Mar. 2012

2, 4 Generation R_x. Dir. Kevin P. Miller. Common Radius Films, 2008. DVD

Generation Rx Film Review

The main thesis of the film “Generation R­_x­” was that psychotropic drugs such as methylphenidate, also known as Ritalin, are being extremely over prescribed and used in the United States due to an overbearing pharmaceutical industry, despite dangerous side effects. According to the film a “fraud” has been perpetrated on the American public. Despite the obvious risks of suicide in pre-trials the FDA allowed these drugs to be sold to consumers. “Generation R_x” claims this is due to panel member’s financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Apparently, 100% of the members on the panel’s that make decisions about mood and psychotropic drugs have investments in the pharmaceutical industry. Which would appear to be a significant conflict of interest. The concept or line from the film that hit home most for me was a fairly simple point. That is the idea that some “double digit” percentage of kids in America have a “mental defect” like ADD or ADHD is like “spitting in Mother Nature’s face.” The film points to the pharmaceutical industry giving incentives to doctors to prescribe certain medications and the heavy advertising campaign like the Zoloft “happy rock” commercial as causes for the wanton abuse of mind altering drugs in the U.S. And to me it would seem that the idea that all of the sudden starting in the 1990’s children are too out of control and have to be sedated with drugs like Ritalin and Prozac does seem incredulous. One R_x proponent equivocated this extreme rise in psychotropic drug use in children to a successful add campaign like that of the Coca Cola polar bears. The RSA animate clip we watched featuring Sir Ken Robinson had some good points to support this idea. Specifically that modern times are the most stimulating in world history, there are simply so many things vying for kid’s interests, like video games, social media, the internet etc. we should be surprised that children don’t want to pay attention in school and medicating them is hardly a solution.

"Tough Guise" Film Review

            On February 28^th I watched part one of the film “Tough Guise.” The primary idea, or thesis of this film is that many men are forced to put up a front of extreme masculinity, or a “tough guise,” do to the societal construction of a hegemonic masculinity and its portrayal in the media. According to the film there is an obvious correlation between masculinity and violence. The concept of masculinity and violence is strongly supported my Kimmel and Mahler in their article “What Triggers School Shootings?” They clearly illustrate to relationship between masculinity, or perceived threats to a young boys masculinity, and school violence.¹ All men are expected to be strong, respected, independent and above all tough and there are sever repercussions for not fitting into this narrow hegemonic masculinity. Deviation from this narrow model is constantly policed by other men or boys, usually through insults such as “fag,” “wuss,” “wimp,” etc, all of which are intended to debase a mans masculinity. It would seem then that there is a constant societal pressure for men to adopt this “tough guise” and to defend their masculinity at any cost, especially through violence. In the context of strain theory, this constant pressure can provide an explanation for men’s overwhelming participation in violent crimes. This social structure of hegemonic masculinity “exerts a definite pressure” on men to engage in violent behavior through the conformity adaptation.²

As a result of this social construction of masculinity, violence is largely gendered towards men and is accepted as a part of masculinity. According to Jackson Katz, this concept is perpetuated by the media. Katz claims that there has been a consistent escalation of what it takes to be tough or manly in movies. To support this point the film points to various movie characters such as Sylvester Stallone as Rambo and Arnold Schwarzenegger as the Terminator vice the Batman character from the sixties. Although it is true that this film is slightly dated, and the “Terminator” may not be the current epitome masculinity portrayed in the media today, there is still a significant connection of violence to masculinity. For example, consider the character Jason Bourne played by Matt Damon.

The evidence used to support this concept was statistical data of violent crimes which were decidedly committed most often by men, most of the statistics claimed that 95% of violent crime was committed by men. This was used to support the concept that violence is gendered to men. Additionally, interviews of young males were conducted to illustrate how the current construction of masculinity is known and accepted across all cultures, race, and socioeconomic groups. This evidence for me was the most convincing. The personal interviews clearly showed how deeply this concept of masculinity has permeated all levels of society. Although initially staggering, the statistical data was least convincing of violence being gendered toward men. That’s not to say it was unconvincing, but from a devil’s advocate perspective one could perhaps provide alternate explanations for the statistical gap. For example, the data mostly relied on conviction data of violent crimes, which could be skewed by our construction of gendered violence. Specifically that due to our general construction of the female gender to be non-violent, many claims of women’s violence might not be taken seriously and thus a conviction could be more difficult to obtain for women.

The point from the film that grabbed my attention most was the concept that the current model of masculinity is in no way a natural construct. This correlation between violence and masculinity is produced by society and is not necessarily inherent in men, but rather a performance of this “tough guise” for society and is often learned from other men. An interesting to test this idea would be to examine the societal constructions of other cultures model of masculinity. Specifically, one could interview young males from other countries to gather their ideal of masculinity and then further examine their proportion of male/female violent crime rates. This film relates to Social Deviance as its clearly shows yet another social construction, a reoccurring theme in the field of sociology.

1 Kimmel, Michael and Mathew Mahler. “What Triggers School Shootings?” Readings in Deviant Behavior. Ed. Alex Thio, Thomas Calhoun, Addrain Conyers. Boston, MA: Hanson 2010. 76-81. Print.

2 Merton, Robert. “Strain Theory.” Readings in Deviant Behavior. Ed. Alex Thio, Thomas Calhoun, Addrain Conyers. Boston, MA: Hanson 2010. 21-26. Print.

GAY!

“Gay.” I said evenly, having been slightly disappointed upon viewing my initial hand draw in a game of Magic the Gathering. In this instance I was referring to my drawn cards as being worthless, stupid and rather unlucky. To use modern slang, it “sucked.” Some people may be outraged by my use of the word, but unfortunately many will not, and in this case did not, even notice its use in a room of about fifteen people.  “Gay” did not always carry these connotations. In fact, it was originally used to indicate something was joyful, happy, or merry and Merriam-Webster’s first listed definition of the word even today is “happily excited: Merry.” According to the Online Etymology Dictionary its first use was in the 14^th century as “full of joy, merry; light-hearted, carefree” and by the 1890’s it had a sense of promiscuity but uses of it indicating immorality date back to the 1630’s. It was not until the 1940’s that it came to reference homosexuality (Merriam-Webster’s 4b definition is “of, relating to, or used by homosexuals”). Today more and more people seem to be using the word to indicate that something is stupid, disliked or somehow negative(despite this definition not being in any dictionary), commonly used in the phrase “that’s so gay.” I have personally overheard the phrase in casual conversation used to indicate that something was stupid, or less than expected and the phrase “that’s so gay” is the “single most common put-down” heard in middle and high schools.¹

How did it become, relatively recently, that gay is equated to negative, or stupid things. I hold the belief that sexuality is a matter of arbitrary preference and I honestly do not care about the sexual choices of other people (the choice versus genetics debate is beyond the scope of this post but I would point out that even if sexuality is a conscious choice, that choice is simply a preference of homosexuality, heterosexuality or anything in between). One could never prove one type of sexuality to be superior, you could rationalize and give reasons for your choice, but at heart it would be a matter of opinion. I do not consciously think of gay people as being stupid, less than, or somehow negative. The truth is until recent revelations in a certain Sociology course I had never given any thought to my use of the word, it was just a casual remark. Even now, being acutely aware of its implications, I still catch myself using the word, it’s almost reflexive. If I harbor no belief that gay people are stupid, less than or any other prejudice why did I choose “gay” to express my discontent knowing it really means something different. Some would say I used the word because I am inarticulate and/or stupid, or maybe I really am just a closet bigot? Instead, I would argue that it is due to the underlying social constructions of society. That is the mainstream belief that homosexuality is somehow inferior to heterosexuality, or that there is something inherently or morally wrong about homosexuality. This all stems from the social adherence to a hegemonic masculinity, or the belief that there is a singular and superior way of being a man, and this is the model against all men are measured.² Characteristics of this “man” include assertiveness, unemotional, rationale, white and straight.³ According to Kimmel and Maher there is a “central connection between gender nonconformity and homosexuality.”⁴ That is to be gay is to remove your manhood. This results in not the fear of gay people, but the fear heterosexuals have of being misperceived as gay, and by the standard of hegemonic masculinity, an inadequate man. Unfortunately then, many boys and men distance themselves from this perception through gay bullying, a mild form of which is saying “that’s so gay.”⁵ By associating things you deem stupid, or lesser with “gay” you indicate to others that you do not like anything “gay” and are therefore surely not gay yourself. After used enough times the word in its new context takes on a new meaning.

This word or phrase is mostly used by young heterosexual males, which is also who the phrase is often directed at and damaging. The phrase usually isn’t directed at people who actually are known to be gay, but it hurts them as well. The consistent use of “gay” in a negative manner debases them as a human being and can make them feel less than a legitimate person. As such there seems to be a campaign to reclaim the word “gay,” or at least to stop using the word in its negative connotations. This can be seen in the commercial circulated by GLSEN and Ad Council a while ago featuring Wanda Sykes.



It is true that, lessening the use of such phrases will weaken stereo types and the prejudice associated with them as it forces people to think about what they are saying, and then hopefully realize it’s wrong⁶. This concept helps, but it is not enough. The negative use of the word “gay” is a symptom, not the source of the problem. The problem is the current paradigm of hegemonic masculinity. This singular view of how to be accepted as a man, and belief that other ways are less adequate, reinforces and recreates such language and stereotypes. As long as people subscribe to the idea that masculinity is exclusive to homosexuality, and more importantly the extreme value we as society place in masculinity, social pressure will create new words and new harassments. If you want to stop prejudice you have to change the paradigm, not just change semantics. Word Count:940

1,4, 5. Kimmel, Michael and Mathew Mahler. “What Triggers School Shootings?” Readings in Deviant Behavior. Ed. Alex Thio, Thomas Calhoun, Addrain Conyers. Boston, MA: Hanson 2010. 76-81. Print.

2,3. Williams, Meredith. Washington State University. WSU Vancouver Campus, VMMC Building, Vancouver, WA. 23 Feb 2012. Lecture.

6. abbyjean. “The Transcontinental Disability Choir: What is AbleistLanguage and Why Should You Care?” Bitchmagazine. Bitchmedia, 11 Nov. 2009.Web. 20 Feb. 2012

The film “Middle Sexes” was about the intersex individuals and their different roles and perceptions in societies across the globe, from the United States, to India, Thailand and Africa. As a whole the film argued that the sexes of individuals are far more diverse than the western societal construct of a male and female binary. The fact is that due the complicated natural development of sex organs a person may develop both male and female attributes. This is supported by Anne Fausto-Sterling’s article “The Five Sexes” which states that people may have one testes and one ovary, testes and some aspects of female genitalia but no ovaries or ovaries and some aspects of the male genitalia but no testes¹. The movie focused heavily on the science of sexual development, particularly that due to various hormones and events during early developmental stages the brain and genitalia may develop naturally in different directions. According to the film about one percent of births are intersex and the Fausto-Sterling article suggests that as many as four percent of births are intersex². The film also illustrates that the male/female binary of gender is merely a social construct, and one that is impractical when considering the diversity in nature³. It is this social construct that creates the stigmatization of intersex people and creates the need to “fix” them. This social binary exists only because we as a society have created it and allowed it to persist. A strong argument that demonstrates this is the existence and roles of intersex people or “Katoy” in Thailand. Katoy’s are widely accepted in Thailand, and even embraced, as was seen in the film “Middle Sexes.” As a result they have a much larger population in Thailand. Christianity had little impact sexual roles in the society and Buddhism actually respects the intersex gender. Thus the lack a necessity for a clear male/female binary many of the Katoy live happy and full lives. It would seem that the western stigmatization of intersex based on our rigid male/female binary s the root cause of fear, violence, and shame towards intersex. The point that stands out the most for me is the fact that it is our own societal constructs (a common theme in social deviance) that permeates the hate for and misery of people, in this case intersex people, in our society. This could be easily assessed by comparing groups of intersex individuals and their persecutors in American Society to those in Thailand. I believe that a comparative analysis of mental health and value questionnaires of these groups would yield astonishing insight to the root cause of gender stigmatization.

Works Cited

1,2 Fausto-Sterling, Anne. "The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough." The Sciences March/April (1993): 20-25. Print

3 Middle Sexes: Redefining He and She. Dir. Antony Thomas. Deep Stealth Productions, 2005. DVD