Normalizing

For me, one of the most unsettling aspects of this year thus far, and in some respects the last several years is the rather clumsy but obvious “normalization” efforts of many to present things that are deeply abnormal as if they are normal. My clinical specialization as a Registered Nurse is in Psychiatric and Community Mental Health Nursing. After over 60 years of application of what I learned in that practice, my sensitivity is heightened to treating abnormal things as normal. It is a dangerous risk, and does not end well.

Terms have meanings and the meanings count. “Normal” refers to conforming to a standard; that which is usual, typical or expected. We create societal norms to establish a place where groups of humans can share space with some degree of agreement on standards of conduct. In contrast to this, “abnormal” refers to deviating from this agreement, from what is normal. Typically, this is done in ways that are undesirable or worrying. As is perhaps obvious, treating something that is undesirable or worrying as if it is an agreed upon societal standard can be not only confounding but hazardous.

Once we, as a society, treat abnormal behavior as if it is normal, and try to provide a sheen or veil to hide this abnormal behavior, we start weakening our understanding of what is normal. By way of example, attempting to control another’s behavior through threats of serious harm is not “normal”. It is destructive and erodes social relationships and the safety of social systems. If “normalized” soon others become convinced that it is not only acceptable but even a desired thing, a good idea, an example of how humans would appropriately treat other humans. It is not.

It is not clear when the drift toward normalizing the abnormal took root, but there is no question that it has deep roots now, and the consequences can be easily documented. When I think of it as a disorder, I note that many US journalists appear to have a severe case of it, as do many public figures. We collectively are not confronting the normalizing of the abnormal but rather focusing on the adaptations we need to pursue to “live with” the consequences of existence from a place of disturbing abnormality. Denial is a popular option.

Some have hypothesized that our adaptation is rooted in fear, that to declare that abnormal behavior is abnormal risks reprisal and harm. This may be true. It is noteworthy that this appears to assume a solo gesture of courage, raising the obvious question: could we not create coalitions and cooperatives that take a communal stance challenging this state of affairs. It is hard to accept that immobilizing fear is the rationale for huge swaths of humans nurturing one another’s normalization of the abnormal, reinforcing it with one another. It looks embarrassing.

When I feel swamped with the normalization rut we are in, I watch various other nation’s news, and encourage others to do so. They too tip toe around some really bizarre stories about the US but they do not try to convince anyone that any of this is normal. They tend to report it as if they are describing a car wreck or a public self-shaming. At least they don’t insist it is normal.

We of course have a challenge on our hands when this dark stretch collapses in on itself. What do we do about all the demonstrably abnormal things we have been treating as normal? How do we articulate what we view as standards, that which is accepted? When people act in ways that are abnormal, doing things that are undesirable or worrying, how do we propose to understand, speak about and act on these abnormal actions? How do we interrupt what is now the well-established pattern of normalizing that which is clearly abnormal?

It does seem to me we need to have some willingness to acknowledge that for a variety of reasons, most self-serving, for a period of time, this normalization pattern really was well established, even enforced, and mislead many. Humans make errors, behave badly sometimes. Just owning this truth is the first and most critical step toward a struggle back to clarity about normalization and acknowledging abnormal behavior.

This really does open a bit of a can of worms however, because there are some behaviors viewed as abnormal, hence worrisome and undesirable that are linked to human traits or practices that make others uncomfortable. If we study the history of our drift toward normalizing the normal, we discover that for many, new experiences of “normal” were very disturbing, and fighting them was the “normal” thing to do, including harming others. For them, these new “normal” things were abnormal.

By way of example, “woke” objectively simply refers to an awareness of social justice issues that a person consciously expresses. This expression is disorienting, sometimes even terrifying to those for whom the social injustice was their preferred state. There is a long list here, but examples help. Racism and sexism are obvious. Hostile bias against those who present with a religion or culture or gender identity that is at best “unfamiliar” expands the terrain of “normalcy” that seems normal to some, deeply abnormal to others.

In teaching Psychiatric and Community Mental Health Nursing to college students, most of them women, I often used a light touch to start the discussion about what was normal and abnormal. It is, after all, rarely really explored. “Normal”, I would posit, “is just like me”. This always stunned the students, and being able to laugh at my dictum took a while. Then we would start the exploration of the reality, recognizing that pretty much, that is everyone’s preferred definition of normal. As is obvious, I actually am not the only human who gets to define normal. Nonetheless, most of us most of the time, operate as if we are.

So, we turn to society to find a more spacious meaning of the term, of what is actually “usual, typical or expected”, as noted earlier. This is actually not really that difficult or complex. We will not find recommendations for cruelty, grift, intimidation, lying, manipulation, vengeance, viciousness, ridicule, self-righteousness…there is actually a long list here. We as a society, in our neighborhoods and communities, our churches and places of employment, in our families actually share a fairly large swath of human qualities we do not consider “normal”, behaviors we try to discourage in our young children.

Recreating our future from the residue of the current damages, we will need, I believe, to actively work to increase our agreement on what is “normal” and what is “abnormal”. Because we have normalized some very damaging and destructive things, there is an urgency to the challenge. Equally challenging is the work of rendering “normal” what some portions of society wish did not exist or would be forbidden or eliminated.

One of the most interesting dimensions of this set of challenges is addressing the fact that usually normal tends to be defined by the majority. If one does a cursory study of small communities throughout the world, this is readily observable. Though part of a larger national set of norms, these small communities are able to design and implement a range of “rules of normal” for their community. Once agreed upon, the whole community concurs and acts upon it.

We have spent some time now living as if normal gets to be defined exclusively by the people who have power and dominance and can harm you if you don’t consent to their definitions. Once fear, threat, authoritarianism and abuse are removed from the process of defining normal, we have the opportunity of discovering what the majority view as normal. Thinking back on that survey of small communities throughout the world, we may find we are living in a world where a good deal of normal is positive, life-giving, supportive, compassionate and kind.

It seems unwise to conclude implying locking in some rigid description of “normal” is a major societal goal. Rather, we may wisely first delineate what we view as least desirable in human behavior: acts of deceit, cruelty, exploitation, revenge, shaming, threatening (as noted earlier, this list is long and we need to refine it). We can declare these as clearly abnormal, that is, undesirable and worrying. Perhaps if we can successfully describe what we think is abnormal, we then leave the field of human action wide open for everything else, especially the as yet unimagined creative possibilities of the human spirit..

“Always remember that you are absolutely unique. Just like everyone else.”

- Margaret Mead -