We see clearly how it has been taken place the construction of the normal-pathological dichotomy, that is to say the difference, in the evolution that has had the history of the explanatory theories of the Schizophrenia. As the surroundings or context have marked everything what was understood like normal, and that it could not be included in this one it stayed excluded and indicated as pathological. But what in a certain context it could be included within the framework of normality, in a later context it was being excluded as it was extended the context. As we can read in the module (p 59), as the psycho-social frame has been incorporating new variables and factors, like for example, the ecological niche in which the person is inserted, the characteristics of the personality, the social network of the subject, etc., have been gotten up determined characteristic that, of not being fulfilled by the subject, they made him be excluded in normal and including in pathological directly. The pathological thing appears, thus, like which it is faced the normal thing, or as we before said, which it transgresses to normality, which is different. In this way, problem will be in to find route correct, that it is adapted to all the variables that must be considered, to establish the concept of normality without slants appear, like it can be the sex to which the subject belongs, for example. normal will be desirable, who has not listened nowadays, can be dealt with him, is one normal personnel , But, what includes that definition of normal person and, why is correct that definition and not another one? , who can be elevated in knowledgeable of the knowledge necessary to establish this definition? On the other hand, this type of practices enters game when being needed that they are to the service of the concrete social system of the context.