Abstract:
Psychiatrists encounter persons from diverse cultures who profess
experiences (e.g., communicating with spirits) that evoke intuitions
of abnormality. This view might not be shared with the person or
her/his cultural peers, raising questions concerning the justification
of such intuitions. This article explores three positions relevant to
the process of justification. The relativist position transfers powers
of judgment to the subject’s peers yet neglects individual values and
operates with a discredited holistic view of culture. The clinical- ethnographic position remedies this by suspending judgment subject
to understanding the individual in a sociocultural context yet finds
objections with the universalist-scientific position: objective standards
exist and could justify intuitions of abnormality cross-culturally.
This article argues that the claim to objectivity is value-laden, reflecting
instead a brand of normality and relationship to reality further
upheld through epistemological utility and valued technological
progress. In conclusion, it is suggested that the clinical-ethnographic
position takes personal values and context seriously, both of which
are crucial for responsible clinical practice.
