Normal: Each person has their own definition

     It isn’t unusual for someone to say “that’s normal” or “that’s not normal”. But what do they really mean by that? What is this standard of normal to which they are comparing to whatever it is that they are noticing? “Normal” is what is normal to the person doing the perception. If I see something that would be something that is normal to me, then I might say “that looks normal”. It is possible that, if I know the other person well enough to know their regular habits, I might still say “that looks normal” even though it might not be normal for me. In whatever manner, the word “normal” will not have a single definition.

     Each person has their own “rituals”. This doesn’t necessarily mean religious behaviors (though it might). For example, I get up in the morning, use the restroom, inspect (and usually have to clean) the kitchen, get caught up with mail and social media, get hot tea and breakfast for my wife, and then do my morning language lessons (currently Spanish). And on it goes. But that schedule may seem extraordinary, strange, or peculiar to someone else.

     Our personal definition is based from our own histories. If I grew up as an orphan, I would have a different baseline from someone growing up in a “nuclear” family. Each would consider their own life to be normal — and the other person’s life something about which one might read in a book. If I was home-schooled, I would avoid certain experiences that someone attending a public, or “private”, school would expect to be as a part of their day. The other people of the household would have their own routines which interact with everyone else’s. And this combination will become unique for each person.

     Much of the time, these activities done by all the people interacting together are innocuous. But not necessarily. Alas, a child who grows up in a household in which they, or other members of the household, are abused in some manner will also consider that behavior to be “normal”. Unless corrected in their perceptions, they will grow up to consider the behavior as “something that everyone does and may have happen to them”. So, it is completely natural if they perpetuate the behavior with the people in their later-formed household. They would not consider it to be “abuse” — they would consider it to be “normal”.

     People are also influenced by their environment. On an island of Hawai’i, a school child may find it normal to go swimming, or surfing, on their way to, or from, school. That would certainly not occur to an Inuit who might be walking home across the snow and packed ice. Of course, since I grew up in a different environment from either of these children, I don’t really know what they would do or what they would each consider to be normal.

     Within the US, income class will make a huge difference between what is considered normal for a person. It will make a difference elsewhere in the world also but it may be cross-referenced with another social system such as caste or level of nobility. The behaviors, and expectations, within that group will seem “normal” to those who live within it — and the behaviors of those outside of that group will either be elevated or denigrated depending on perspective about those outside of the group.

     Although “rags to riches” stories do exist, it causes internal strain, and strains within relationships, when a person moves from one segment of society to another — even if they have “risen” in level. And it is very difficult for a person in one societal segment to truly represent, or understand, other segments because they live within different normalities and have very little insight into that of other segments.

     While it somewhat depends upon physical and cultural environment, people will do different activities. These activities will be different based on their histories, what resources are available, and their interests. Surfing, ice fishing, going to a mall — normal to the person doing it and, perhaps, quite exotic to someone else. A normal activity to one person may seem exotic to another.

     A child growing up in a war zone is in constant flux. There is little they can rely upon. Their house may be gone the next day — or a parent or sibling. There is no security possible. A child goes to school one day and is a refugee the next. This high aspect of instability must affect the perspective, and behavior, of the child. But it would still be normal to them. In older days of medicine — and still in too many segments of the world society — a large percentage of children died before they were a couple of years old. It was sad for all, but expected and “normal”.

     In my household a number of years ago, we adopted (or she adopted us) a cat from an animal shelter. We did not see her much for the first three weeks after we brought her to our house as she immediately ran for the back of our refrigerator as soon as we released her from the carrier. She did eat, and drink, as such resources would disappear overnight — but she had a huge readjustment to her own personal “normal”. I am sad to say that, after ten years with us, some of her baseline characteristics were still present.

     “All the world is a stage and we are only players”. A rich, well-nourished, male child in a stable city with easily accessible parents will absorb a very different normal from that of a poor, malnourished, female child surviving in a war zone.

     It is a cliché to say “walk a mile in another’s moccasins — yet it is still true that everyone has their own individual “normal”. We may have judgements on the other normals but they may have arguments, of equal weight from their points of view. of “incorrectness” of your own behavior.

     As long as the thoughts, behaviors, and actions do not impinge upon another’s ability to follow their own normal, it is best to just recognize that each person is unique and what is normal for them is what they expect to do.

     “Normality” only exists as a unique attribute that applies to each of us.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Race: The Invented Divider

The definition of race is primarily that of running as the word comes from the Middle English word ras meaning "to rush". However, although it may be one of the lesser definitions of the word, if one talks about "race" -- without article or pronoun -- the definition that comes to mind is often that of a division of humanity into different groups.

This idea first came into being to separate groups based on observable physical traits in the 1600s and continued in increasing use, and refined definition, through the early 1800s. Although some of the scientists had neutral goals for the use of the division, it was primarily used as a method of justifying colonization and subjugation of one group over another. It is largely discredited as a useful methodology within science at the present time.

In the elementary school that my children attended, there were about 850 children. If you lined up the children according to skin pigmentation, you would have a long continually varying set of shades and colors from near alabaster to ebony. If you lined them up on a summer day, you would get a different ordering of people from that on a winter day. The same thing holds true for color of eyes, or hair, or width of nose. Each physical characteristic varies on a continuous stream -- although there are certainly areas of the world that are more homogenous (similar between individuals) than others. This is why it has been abandoned by science -- it makes no sense to have discrete classifications.

Just because race has no reasonable definition does not mean there is not racism -- bias and prejudice based on observable (or known familial) physical traits. Racism, sexism, religionism, and other bias/prejudice are forms of xenophobia (fear of "the other"). It has existed since the beginning of recorded history and most likely since the rise of consciousness. The only cure for the syndrome is knowledge -- understanding of "the other" such that the similarities become more obvious than the differences. During periods of antagonism and preparation for war, differences are accentuated (made to seem greater) by governments in order to inflame xenophobia and the inclination to distrust and fear.

Some people say that an ism can only take place by the group in greater power toward the group having less power. Thus, there can be no sexism by women having bias or prejudice about men and there can be no bias or prejudice by pigmentally enhanced people towards those who are pigmentally challenged. This makes as much sense as the original xenophobic reaction. If there exists bias or prejudice based on an observable (or known association with a group who DOES have such observable) physical traits then the relation of power makes no difference.

In summary, the best way to work with, and reduce, xenophobia in all of its forms is knowledge and understanding.