Categorizing the Disordered

The art of classifying does not seem to be wholly objective as I am quickly learning through this week's reading.  Social influences, geographical locations, and technology all play a role in how we classify everything from animals to mental disorders.  Social influences and pressures play a particularly significant role when it comes to classify people.  Many times, these classifications come at the cost of offending groups that are classified unfavorably due to how the persons completing the classification perceive those who are being classified.  For example, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder in the DSM-II in the early 1970's (Pomeroy & Parrish, 196).  It's fairly apparent that those who identified as homosexual were upset with the APA on this classification, as evidenced by their "protests toward APA for its perceived stigmatization of homosexuals (Pomeroy & Parrish, 196)."

The key may lie in how we distinguish between what is different and normal in society.  In my last blog post, titled "1.2 Million and Counting," I delved into the classification of monsters, including humans with strange physical attributes.  Our discussion in class on this also got me thinking of how we do not take the feelings of those who are being classified into account.  These categories have the potential of identifying someone in a very negative light and they would be stuck in that category throughout human history.  How does a woman, who has the fate of growing a full beard feel about being categorized among history's bearded women?  Furthermore, how does she feel when her defined role as a bearded woman belongs with a circus freakshow?  It is translatable to this case with homosexuality.  The APA, whether intentionally or unintentionally, grouped them with those who are "different" from the rest.

According to Bowker and Star in "Sorting Things Out," there are traces "of bureaucratic struggles, different in world-view and systematic erasures do remain in the written classification system...(55)."  Take this homosexuality issue in a geographic context.  Different areas of the United States will have different ways of displaying their city or town.  Some place like Fargo, North Dakota would probably be a very unlikely place for a gay parade, whereas Los Angeles would be a more likely location.  Furthermore, the perception of the classification of homosexuality may be vastly different between the local populaces of these two cities.  So is there any benefit or use to these types of classifications?  It seems to do more harm than good to those who are being categorized as such.  How do the social institutions that govern these classifications modify them as to avoid any potential subjectivity?  Is it even possible that a list can be categorized in a universally accepted method?