Introduction
Psychopathology has been viewed differently throughout history and throughout various cultures. The ancient Chinese, Greeks and Romans viewed it psychopathology as a spiritual issue, and they all had their own ways of treating it—from dietary interventions to music interventions to getting more fresh air out of doors and in a natural setting, and so on (Kyziridis, 2005). The Egyptians viewed it as a physical disorder. The Hindus viewed it as an issue of finding the right balance between the physical and the spiritual. In the Middle Ages, it could be viewed as anything from demonic possession to a sign of holiness (Smith, 2007). Indeed, nothing really has changed because as Wedge (2011) points out, “there is no consensus in the medical community about what behaviors constitute a particular ‘disorder’.” Bleuler helped to popularize the idea of the “split mind” in modern times, which has been used to characterize schizophrenia—but even schizophrenia is poorly understood and researchers cannot agree on precisely what it is or what causes it, though they have been able to identify means of controlling it to some extent. Freud sought to explain psychopathology by looking at the family dynamic and the underlying early childhood issues that could be hidden in the unconscious trying to work their way out (Kyziridis, 2005). Some researchers believe it is hereditary, others environmental, and still others a combination of factors, including a spiritual dimension. McGuire et al. (1995) argued, for instance, that a “predisposition to verbal hallucinations is associated with a failure to activate areas concerned with the monitoring of inner speech” (p. 596). And for children the issue is even more complex because children can be misdiagnosed as having a psychopathological disorder if they are judged by adult standards of behavior. It has to be remembered that children behave differently from adults and they could just be exceptionally creative or energetic or hyperactive or virtually anything else under the sun.

Various Perspectives on Etiology

Freud, Jung and Adler all had unique perspectives on the etiology of psychopathology. Freud and Jung were of the psychoanalytical school. Adler formed the humanist school. Freud began the work on the psychoanalysis, by exploring the levels of consciousness and linking these levels with a motivating force for human behavior, and troubled psychopathology was in his view the result of repressed desire in the unconscious trying to work its way out—usually some fixation from childhood. Jung developed this idea by incorporating elements of moral philosophy into the framework and adopting a more spiritual approach to the problem of psychopathology, seeing it as rooted in both repression but also in morality. Adler moved away from their concepts by theorizing that man was much more actively in control of his own destiny than what Freud or Jung speculated. Adler viewed psychopathology as being the result of not being able to achieve one’s goals or being given the opportunity to do so. He viewed people...…for the community.

Whatever direction the study of psychopathology takes in the future, it will likely need to come up with some way to explain the culture and cultural issues that are impactful today. The study of psychopathology should not be divorced or separated from the study of sociology. Psycho-sociological approaches should be studied and used to apply to those with mental issues, and Carl Whitaker’s approach to experiential family therapy could be viewed as a helpful way to discuss pathopsychology (Watson, 2011). The spiritual side of life should also receive some focus, for psychologists today are also discovering that a spiritual approach to therapy can have a positive impact for clients and patients.

The goal should be nonetheless to understand people as individuals and to look at each case individually. There is not going to be a one-size-fits-all definition or approach to psychopathology that can be applied to everybody at all times. Each person presents with issues that are unique and each person has to be understood holistically, and sometimes that means going beyond the person and bringing in others—such as members of the person’s family. The more that we can begin to understand the whole person, the more likely we are to be able to assess the issues and bring the person to a better place with a higher quality of life. We may not always understand everything perfectly, but the main ideas—the common sense logic of a Carl Whitaker—should still have a…