Understanding the Meaning of Normal Behavior

While our government controls many aspects of our lives, there is one other metaphorical idea that controls us on an even smaller scale. To be normal; a dominating force that determines much of our day to day behavior. The goal of living such a life dictates many if not all of the decisions some of us make- everything from what we wear to which personality traits we showcase- friends, family, co-workers, and strangers each apply a different pressure for us to abide by some sense of the word. There are times we look at ourselves in the mirror and question why we “can’t just be normal?”; but in what context do any of these phrases make sense? Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines the term as, “constituting or conforming to a type or standard”. Be that as it may, this definition has yet to explain what “standard” entails and why not being normal is unacceptable. So what truly is normal behavior, and should we begin to question this systems validity?

Our understanding of the word has changed over time. Early 18th century dictionary Eng.

Scholar Complete vaguely describes the word as “According to Rule”. However, medical communities slowly adopted the word to describe healthy states of their patients; here is where our desire to have “normal” tests results derives from. This definition remained fairly constant until America experienced a sudden cultural shift at the hands of the Great Depression and WWII. Those who survived the chaotic devastation now desperately needed stability, which manifested itself into the “American Dream: 2.5 kids, a dog, and a house with a white-picket fence”. This iconic image of comfortable, suburban everyday life that framed the postwar era established a new cyclical standard of 9-5 jobs, cookie-cutter homes, and what today resembles “normal” behavior.

From this new standard emphasis on sameness and conformity, it became easy for people to shun those outside of this box, which brought forth a new nation-wide obsession with the abnormal. During this era judgement of others soared and subsequently overruled much of the individual’s own objectives. Consumer culture and domesticity were heavily propagated through television, women’s magazines, popular psychology, and cinema (Douglas 1994). Writer George Orwell during this time also toyed with the idea in his book Nineteen Eighty-four. The plot tells the story of the protagonist, Winston, being hunted down by his town in part because he no longer fits the officially accepted standard of normality. At one point the character escapes with Julia to the calm, unruled countryside and “wondered vaguely whether in the abolished past it had been a normal experience to lie in bed like this.” Here, Winston and Julia are discovering for the first time that their sense of “normal” may not be the only one that exists- it’s only relevant to what you’re exposed to. This book, along with seismic social shifts, introduced a new highly selective standard in society; one that is extremely subjective.

Perhaps what we’ve grown to think of as normal behavior is in fact merely normative. “Normative” is defined by the OED as, "establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm, especially of behavior". So, in the instance of the US, it is normative to live the modern American Dream: earn a college degree, hold down a full-time job, have a "traditional family" (i.e. a married couple and their children), and to be mentally stable. We tend to consider those that live outside of this lifestyle structure as unorthodox. But is everything outside of this norm truly "abnormal"? When about 66% of the population does in fact not have a college degree, 36% of our workforce freelanced in 2017, only one-quarter of American households still consist of a “traditional family”, and depression is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Take a deeper look into the real lives of Americans and you'll see that "not normal" is a lot more common than you'd expect. Quickly realizing the discrepancy here, psychologists began to seek out a more concise definition of the word. The products of this ongoing argument resulted in shaping the parameters of normal by a few different paths of logic.

Due to the vagueness of normality, researchers instead choose to focus on trying to establish what is abnormal, in hopes of shaping the other. In 1984 Rosehan and Sligman sought to resolve the vagueness in diagnosing abnormal behavior and based it on the person’s ability to function properly. This method outlined seven criteria that, if present in the person, would be “unable to cope with the demands of everyday life” (McLeod). Criteria focused on the distress on the individual, social conventions, and social norms in the form of “suffering, maladaptiveness (danger to self), unconventionality (stands out), irrationality, unpredictability, causes observer discomfort, and violates moral/social standards” (McLeod). One weak point with this strategy is many maladaptive behaviors are considered acceptable by social norm standards, such as excessive drinking, or skipping school. Furthermore, it’s implied that behavior outlined in the criteria will never be helpful to the person when in some cases it may, such as “abnormal” levels of handwashing in patients with OCD.

Other psychologists have attempted to explain normal by whether or not one violates a given social norm. “Norms are expected ways of behaving in a society according to the majority and those members of a society who do not think and behave like everyone else break these norms so are often defined as abnormal.” (McLeod). Aspects such as culture, context and situation, historical context, and age and gender are used to establish these social norms. In that case, “normal” can be constructed on the pretense of what is normative. When applying this reasoning it quickly becomes clear that if you were to build your behavior on the basis of normativity, you’d have better success building a home on quicksand.

Some distinguish the two ideas from a more clinical perspective by using statistical infrequency. In this method, “a person's trait, thinking or behavior is classified as abnormal if it is rare or statistically unusual” (McLeod) Here it can be clear by using numeral cut-off points, that if a trait such as IQ is outside of the average score, then the person can be categorized as abnormal. Unfortunately this logic also presents limitations because it does not “distinguish between desirable and undesirable behavior” (McLeod). For example: if you had the chance to pick the abnormal behavior you possessed, and were given the option of having webbed fingers or not being obese, which trait would you pick? This definition also suggests that those who fall outside of the statistical average are rare, when that may not be true. While having a mental illness may not be extremely common, 1 in 5 adults experience some form of it in any given year. It's almost as if all the effort to sift through the differences may in fact just be putting them both back into the same bowl.

The consensus among psychological studies completed over the years can be generalized by stating that normal is only conceptualized once the parameters of abnormal are established; one cannot be defined without the other. All definitions face the predicament of whether or not what so many researchers have attempted to define even exists since there are so many varied ways of observing the idea. Even in the original context “according to Rule”, the term is virtually unable to set a firm definition because “consensus, social legitimacy in classification, trait confirmability, and negativity bias” (Segura 2015) changes over time. Based on the lack of any conclusive research completed thus far, it’s worth questioning whether any definition of normal can be set due the constant evolution of classification and diagnosis of abnormal behavior. A more nuanced understanding of the fickle nature of the term could also help to reduce discrimination, psychological misdiagnosis, and ever growing social anxiety.

Endless conflict over the term has caused decades of anguish for psychologists and ordinary people alike. Which leads us to a greater question: why are we all constantly striving towards this goal if it rarely can be met? If the struggle to establish a standard, then meet said standard for this word is so difficult, what if it meant something more personal? A meaning that didn’t pressure us to live our lives in a way that made us feel uncomfortable, unsuccessful, or even worse, unfulfilled. If some of the unique intricacies that make each of our lifestyles “abnormal” also make life worth living, then maybe we should instead eradicate the crippling pressures of molding to a shapeshifting box. I suggest normal should not be a conforming average, but rather whatever you’re comfortable with- however “dysfunctional” that may be.

If washing your hands twice an hour makes you whole, the thought of having kids makes you want to throw up, or switching genders just feels right, individuality should be celebrated rather than shunned. As long as what you do isn't actively harming yourself or others, then self-fulfillment and finding something that works for you should trump what others expect of you. So go ahead, make your living by gaming for 10 hours a day and use your left hand with pride. In the words of author Mandy Hale, “Rules are made to be broken. Be bold enough to live life on your terms, and never, ever apologize for it. Go against the grain, refuse to conform, take the road less traveled instead of the well-beaten path.” I propose that to bring back the true essence of this word, we must strip the tyrannical connotations and begin to live with peace knowing that in our own unique way, we all are normal.