Strolling through woods, my friend asked me “is that normal?” and seemed astonished when I replied, “Is that question even relevant?” We were talking about thoughts, feelings, experience – I can’t remember, now, exactly which. In any case, I have been asked that question, or variants of it, so often. We seem to be obsessed with normality; strange when in so many areas of life we are busy deconstructing the notion.

So here is my theory. Normality is an idea that stems from the herd. Herd behaviour is a primitive, instinct-driven behaviour designed to ensure survival of the group at the expense of the outliers. The slowest, or those on the fringes, can sacrificed to the group cause; picked off by predators or extreme conditions.

Two things follow.

  1. The individual, when the group is operating at this primitive level, becomes anxious if they find themselves at the back, or off too far to one side. “Am I normal?” becomes a proxy for “am I safe?”
  2. The group, when under pressure, will expend less energy supporting individuals on the fringes, since their value to the group lies chiefly in their expendability.

There is another angle which is the stigma attached to being at the rim of the bell-shaped curve. I suspect that this is a little more complex. We are generally placid as long as things continue as they always have (and provided our basic needs, at least, are met). If something out-of-the-ordinary arrives, though, we are challenged, and the degree of challenge depends on the extent to which we feel insecure. If something unfamiliar turns up in my experience (a skin blemish, or an unusual sensation, for example), or in my group, I may welcome it if I am feeling secure, or be suspicious of it, if not.

Because, in the latter instance, novelty is unwelcome, I do not want to be associated with it. If I run next to this individual, then I may be sacrificed by the herd along with them, or by association. They, by definition, are at the fringes and expendable – a target for predation, or a low priority for succour – so the further I am from them the better.

My conclusions are several:

  1. An insecure group will tolerate difference less; will stigmatise it more; will be happier to see it suffer and disappear.
  2. To decrease stigmatisation of minorities, we need not to attack the perpetrator more, but somehow reduce their sense of insecurity.
  3. When we find ourselves asking “is it normal?” we are operating from a primitive and insecure position. The better question might be “is it dangerous?” At least, then, we allow ourselves the possibility of higher-level existence: welcoming and experiencing novelty, and providing succour to the needy.

Home Page: Therapeutic Attitude


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s