Hello It’s Complex Readers,
I hope all is well with you and that the complexities of your lives are manageable. In this newsletter, I grapple with some complexities of what it means to be normal. It certainly involves grappling with multiple, connected, and dynamic issues.
Please keep telling anyone and everyone about It’s Complex. Thank you!
A Reminder for Familar Readers and an Orientation for New Readers
Here at It’s Complex we think about and deal with the world’s many complexities—from global issues to individual experiences. The world sure is a complex place, and it is easy to get overwhelmed. We end up glossing over complexity and postpone thinking about it. But much is at stake for humanity and for individuals. Let’s stop postponing; let’s embrace complexity and deal with it. At It’s Complex, we think about and deal with complexity from a holistic systems perspective. A system is a wider whole made up multiple, connected, and dynamic parts. So, we think about and deal with any complex issue in terms of multidimensionality (M), connectedness (C), and dynamics (D). I like to abbreviate them as MCD. Think MCD, be MCD!
Multidimensionality refers to how complex phenomena are made up of multiple parts.
Connectedness refers to the varied ways in which complex phenomena are connected or linked. Systems theory emphasizes interrelatedness, which refers to mutual and reciprocal connections between and among parts and wholes.
Dynamics refers to how system processes are ongoing and can be played out in stable ways, as well as in varied, changing, and sometimes unpredictable ways.
For further details (or as a refresher), check out some of the first newsletter posts.
Newsletter: Why Be Normal?
When I was in 8th grade, I started collecting buttons. Some buttons were political, some depicted characters from my favorite tv shows, some were of Broadway shows I went to, some were humorous, and some articulated interesting or profound (to me at the time) insights about the world. At some point in high school, I bought a button that said, “Why be normal”. I wore it on a mid-season jacket for years, and I still have it in my desk drawer where I see it regularly. Even though the button does not sport a question mark, I always thought of it as posing a question. Maybe that was my first foray into questioning convention and the status quo. I think I knew that I wasn’t “normal” in some way. I didn’t think I was much like my peers and I rarely felt like I fit in. And today, I continue to ponder the button’s question. Grappling with this question also requires grappling with a prior question, namely: What is normal? Or, what does “normal” mean? Does it mean being like your peers? Does it mean fitting in? These questions also raise further questions. What does it mean to be like your peers? Are peers homogeneously one way? What does fitting in mean—how does one fit in? Fit in where? And asking why be normal implies questions about abnormal, including: Why not be abnormal? And what about norms? Does a normal person follow group norms? Is it abnormal not to follow norms? So many questions…
It turns out that even clinical psychologists and psychiatrists struggle with what is normal and abnormal. I did not know it then, but around the time I bought and wore the button, the American Psychiatric Association was revising its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) for the third and fourth times. Psychiatrists and clinical psychologists use this manual to screen for and diagnose mental disorders. According to the Association’s website, they started revising in 1974 and the DSM-III was published in 1980. A revision of the DSM-III was published in 1987, and the current version—the DSM-V—was published in 2013. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/history-of-the-dsm
Normal is complex. Normal can be and has been defined in multiple ways. There are multiple and connected ways of being normal. Norms and conceptions of normal are dynamic—they have changed over the course of history and have varied within and across cultures. Because normal and abnormal seem applicable to just about anything people do, I find it useful to start with a general definition that can encompass varied dimensions of human functioning. And for that, I turn to the dictionary.
Typical and Acceptable
According to my large, hardcover Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th Edition), the first meaning of normal is “perpendicular: perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency.” Oh no, that is not what we are talking about here, so on to other meanings: “according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle,” “conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern.” The Merriam-Webster definition on the internet also includes “conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern, ” but then adds to it: “characterized by that which is considered usual, typical, or routine.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/normal
Merriam-Webster (large hardcover version and internet) defines norms as: “an authoritative standard” and “a principle of right action binding upon the members of a group and serving to guide, control, or regulate proper and acceptable behavior.” Norm also refers to “a pattern or trait taken to be typical in the behavior of a social group” and “a widespread or usual practice, procedure, or custom.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/norm
Based on these definitions, I understand normal and norms as what is typical and considered acceptable behavior to a group. And a group can refer to varied social groups, such as cultures, peer groups, work groups, clubs, and families. (Actually, I am not always sure what counts as a group, but I will leave that for another time.) With regard to cultures, “norms” refers to cultural conceptions of acceptable behavior. If people follow cultural norms, they are behaving or acting in ways that are considered normal in their culture. Typical and acceptable. Well, typical is one issue and acceptable is another. I think that typical is about what is, whereas acceptable is about what should be.
If X is typical, it is common, but not necessarily good or bad, right or wrong, positive or negative, acceptable or unacceptable. Sometimes what is typical may be deemed good, right, or acceptable and sometimes what is typical may be deemed bad, wrong, or unacceptable. For example, it may be typical for teenagers to lie, but is lying acceptable? Not if honesty is the best policy. It may be typical for young children to run around, but doing so is not necessarily right or wrong, positive or negative. It depends. On a playground it is fine, but it is not so great in a restaurant or museum. If normal is typical, it implies that abnormal is not typical or not what most people do. If a child does not run around, you might wonder if there is a problem.
Deeming X acceptable is tantamount to deeming it good, right, and how it should be. Labeling some action normal gives it credibility by associating it with how people are and should be. It means that they are following accepted group norms. If normal is acceptable (right, good, and as it should be), it implies that abnormal is unacceptable, negative, or problematic in some way.
Some Confounding Issues and Questions
As I think about normal and norms as typical and acceptable, I find myself grappling with varied confounding issues and questions, especially with regard to the acceptable part of normal and norms.
Who Decides? As already pointed out, what is typical for a group is not inherently acceptable or unacceptable. Who then decides if some typical way of acting is acceptable or not, and how are such decisions made? Parents and teachers may not approve when a teenager lies, but maybe the teenager’s friends do not find lying to parents and teachers unacceptable. On the other hand, they may not approve of lying to one another. The same issues arise for non-typical action. If someone’s action is not typical, it may or may not be considered acceptable. It depends. It depends on so much, including what specifically the person is doing, why they are doing so, and what else is going on in the situation. In some circumstances, doing what is not typical might be quite acceptable or adaptive.
People Disagree. People within groups do not always agree about what is acceptable and unacceptable. Examples abound. Going back to the psychiatrists’ diagnostic manual, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is in the DSM-V, but some Iraq War veterans object to constructing their stress as abnormal because it seems like such a normal human reaction to the traumas of war. In other words, not showing signs of PTSD would be abnormal. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1536504215609300
Questioning. People can and do question what is considered typical and routine, as well as what is acceptable and unacceptable. That is how I see my button. I see it as a call to question status quo conceptions of normal. It is promoting a questioning stance toward what most people do. Just because most people do X, it does not mean that I have to do X. It is promoting a questioning stance toward norms and what most people consider acceptable or unacceptable. Just because most people follow certain norms and find them acceptable, does it mean that I have to as well?
I remember a time a bit before I acquired that button when I was discussing the latest episode of MASH with a friend. She started talking about other tv shows and mentioned Farrah. I asked, “Who is Farrah?” She responded, “You know, Farrah Fawcett-Majors.” I shook my head in ignorance, “Who is she?” My friend was incredulous: “You don’t know who Farrah is? How can you not know who Farrah is?” I shrugged. She explained: “She’s the star of Charlie’s Angels.” “Oh,” I said. “I don’t watch that show.” I continued to not watch Charlie’s Angels and I did not care that not knowing about the latest tv sensations rendered me not normal. Why be normal if it means having to watch Charlie’s Angels? I suppose that is one way that I was not like my peers and did not fit in.
Reflecting on and questioning norms and ideas about normal means asking my button’s question: “Why be normal?” More specifically, it involves thinking about questions such as:
What beliefs and values do norms and ideas about normal represent and promote? Do they promote pluralism, diversity, inclusion, and respect? Do they promote empathic understanding and forging common ground? If not, how can they be changed?
Whom do they include, whom do they exclude? Whose interests are served, whose are undermined?
What ways of acting do norms and ideas about normal enable and constrain?
What are their historical origins, and how have they been stable and variable over time?
What implications do norms and ideas about normal have for constructing abnormal and how those deemed abnormal are treated?
How do other groups understand norms and normal? What can we learn from them?
Dynamics. Through disagreeing and questioning, what is deemed normal is also historically dynamic. Thus, what was considered normal in the past may not be considered normal today, what was considered abnormal in the past may not be considered abnormal today, and who knows what will happen in the future. Of course, there is also some stability in what is deemed normal or abnormal over historical time. It thus becomes important to discern some of the ways in which the interplay between stability and variability is played out for normal and abnormal.
During the pandemic, we witnessed new norms in the process of being established as people were forced to interact in new ways. We went from being with people, to standing six feet apart, to interacting on Zoom. Did you forget to stand six feet away at first? What did you do if someone kept coming closer to you? I kept backing away. On Zoom, did you keep your video on? If any teachers are reading this—did you require students to keep their videos on? What did you do if they refused? What did you do when you saw someone without a mask indoors where it was required? Did you establish new family routines? This paragraph could go on and on. The point is that normal and norms are not set in stone. The new pandemic norms built on pre-pandemic norms, ensuring some consistency and continuity in how people interacted, but there was change as well.
Normalizing. I also find it interesting to ponder how the dynamics of what counts as normal are conveyed by the word “normalizing.” During the Trump years, I kept noting pundits and analysts talking about how he was flouting political norms and “normalizing” previously unheard of ways of acting, including making money at taxpayers’ expense when he and the secret service stayed at properties that he owned; openly insulting, and even threatening people who disagreed with him; not releasing tax returns; not trying to stop a violent stampede on the US Capitol, and claiming election fraud despite all evidence to the contrary. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/lifestyle/magazine/trump-presidential- norm-breaking-list/ In that context, normalizing refers to the process of making acceptable or typical what was previously considered unacceptable or atypical. Hopefully, such action will not become normal for future presidents. It also sounds like normalizing violence to me when members of the US Congress describe January 6th as “a normal tourist visit” or post Christmas cards depicting themselves and their families (including young children) with guns.
On April 21, 2022, I listened to MSNBC news analyst and reporter, Ali Velshi reporting from Ukraine. At one point he said that that the sound of air raid sirens may be normalized, but would never be normal. In this case, “normalize” connotes a typical or regular event, and “normal” connotes acceptable.
How to Deal with Abnormal? When there is widespread agreement about some ways of being normal, what happens to people who do not act in ways that are considered acceptable? Is what they are doing considered benignly eccentric or quirky? Are they abnormal in a problematic way? Are they taken to be deviant, criminal, or immoral? Some people would answer yes, and people who do not follow norms or who are considered by some to be abnormal have been the victims of ridicule, discrimination, and/or violence. But others would answer no. There are no absolute answers to these questions because it depends on multiple co-occurring factors. It depends on the specifics of what someone is doing; it depends on the particular culture, and it depends on who the person is and who is judging them. And to further complicate matters, how to deal with people who are not deemed normal is also subject to debate and disagreement. Should they be punished or shunned? Should they take medication and/or go to therapy?
Back to Normal
Are we back to normal yet? Will we get back to normal? Can we get back to normal? Should we get back to normal?
Throughout the pandemic, people waited for the pandemic to end so that we could “get back to normal.” Throughout the pandemic, people longed and pined for normalcy. In early 2022, I saw a Pfizer commercial about “the pursuit of normal” with images of unmasked people happily interacting in a diner, at a bus stop, in a grocery store, and on a playground. grhttps://www.ispot.tv/ad/q_Qc/pfizer-inc-remarkable As I think about pre-pandemic days, my button calls out to me: Why be normal? Personally, I think that pre-pandemic normal was beset with problems, including: Trump was president, the US Congress was ineffective and mired in partisan invective, income inequality was out of control, racism was rampant, and climate change was accelerating. Why go back to that? If that is normal, why be normal?
Not only were there problems with what was normal before the pandemic, but going back to some of that is no longer even feasible because the world is a dynamic system. The world changed and so there are calls for a “new normal.” Even during the first year of the pandemic, then New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, called for “reimagining” life and public policies after the pandemic. Biden tried to “build back better.” But what will the new normal look like? Constructing a new normal involves multiple, interrelated, and dynamic processes that will not happen in one fell swoop. Around the world, there are local and global political, economic, educational, environmental, and healthcare issues to deal with. During the pandemic, many individuals reflected on and changed how they think about normal for work, varied aspects of their personal lives, and life in general. And then as the pandemic seemed to be winding down, Russia invaded Ukraine, and normal was again turned upside down.
Who knows what will be normal for the world in the months and years to come. The immediate and long-term future of normal are in flux. Insofar as people construct norms and what counts as normal through multiple interrelated and dynamic individual, social, cultural, bodily, and environmental processes, norms and normal are always in flux. But that flux seems quite palpable now. So, we are left to ponder and debate what we want normal to be and how to achieve and maintain it for some fleeting period of time.
By the way, I have one other button in my desk drawer: It isn’t easy being weird…
Some Questions to Think and Comment About
What do you think? What interested you, what surprised you, what struck you?
How would you answer my button’s question: Why be normal?
What do you think is normal? What do you think is abnormal?
What norms and conceptions of normal do you question and/or disagree with?
What about pre-pandemic normal do you want to go back to and what do you not want to go back to? Did you create some new normal during the pandemic?
What questions do you have about any of this?