What does normality mean?

The concept “normal” is used frequently and indiscriminately in our society.. On many occasions we hear that certain things or behaviors are or are not normal. Now, when we try to define the idea of ​​normality, the matter becomes complicated. It is difficult to define what is normal and what is pathological, strange or rare.

A really dangerous aspect of the concept of normality is the associated connotations. Since it is used on many occasions as a meter of what is correct or not. When we attribute the characteristic of abnormality to a person, behavior or thing, it is usually followed by negative prejudices. This, to a certain extent, is due to a misconception of normality, ignorance of the depth of the term; For this reason it is important to understand what “normal” means.

A simple way to approach the term is through the opposite of normality, that is, the pathological.. Understanding those processes and behaviors that are not normal will help us outline their definition. For this reason, the first definition that we are going to address is the definition of the pathological.

Definition of pathological or abnormal

Defining what is pathological has always been complicated in Psychology due to the complexity of delimiting its criteria.. In addition, it has the added difficulty of what to do with what is strange or abnormal. A debate still in the making in psychology is that it should be considered susceptible to diagnosis or therapy; We talked about the question of which pathological behaviors should be treated and which should not, what criteria should be followed?

When defining pathology or abnormality in psychology, four different criteria are usually used. An important aspect is that it is not necessary to meet all the criteria to consider something abnormal. The correct thing is to understand it as 4 dimensions that score in a qualitatively different way.

The 4 criteria are:

The statistical criterion. It is based on the idea that normality is that which is most probable. It is a mathematical criterion based on data, those behaviors that are most repeated will be normal; while those that barely occur will be pathological or abnormal. It has great strength in assuming an objective method of measuring normality but loses effectiveness when there is a lot of variability; and there is also the problem of defining the percentage threshold that implies the change from abnormal to normal.The biological criterion. Here we take into account natural biological processes and laws to determine normality. Those behaviors or processes that follow biological normality will not be considered pathological. The problem with this criterion is that biological laws are scientific models that can be incomplete and erroneous; and a new finding can be interpreted as a pathology, instead of as a part associated with the normal process.The social criterion. It is based on the fact that normality is what society accepts as normal. Society, through intersubjectivity and social knowledge, establishes the characteristics that normality must meet. We can attribute a strong historical and cultural bias to this conception; Depending on the time and culture, the concept will vary.The subjective criterion. According to this criterion, pathological behaviors would be those that the subject who performs the behaviors sees as such. This criterion is shown to be very deficient on many occasions, since it shows great subjectivity and is highly biased; because we tend to value all our behaviors as normal.

The criteria that we have presented above are useful when diagnosing and treating disorders in clinical psychology.. However, we can realize that they do little to really delve into the meaning of normality. Of course, they are useful for us to understand or approach the notion we have of what is strange or abnormal.

Normality from socioconstructivism

Socioconstructivism can help us understand the concept of normality. From this prism it is understood that all knowledge is constructed through the interaction of the individual with society and its environment.. Normality would be another idea constructed within the framework of this interaction.

This means that The normal will never be able to be treated from an objectivity decontextualized from social intersubjectivity.. That is to say, we will not be able to talk about normality in general, but rather about normality within a specific society. In turn, this implies that it does not matter what criteria we use to define what is pathological, since all of them fall into the social conceptualization of strange or abnormal. The point of view that we describe gives us an interesting and curious vision when facing the study of the normal and may involve some ethical-moral debate.

Everything that we see as strange and abnormal does not have to be associated with a problematic or negative disposition of the individual who carries out said abnormal behavior. In reality, society would be the one that would exclude behaviors, ideas or characteristics, calling them strange or abnormal.. To a large extent, this explains, for example, the great variability recorded in behaviors, acts and feelings in the box of normality and abnormality throughout history. For example, centuries ago it was normal and legitimate to kill a person if your pride was hurt, today we consider it strange and immoral.

Thus, we could say that Normality is a social construct that encompasses the behaviors, ideas and characteristics that adapt to life in society.. It is a form of self-regulation that society has. For this reason, psychology is taking paradigms about disorders and disabilities based on functional diversity; Let us think that abnormality is generated by society, and is not a characteristic of the individual.

To be or not to be normal, here is the question

“What you’re doing doesn’t seem normal to me,” “does what you’re doing seem normal to you?” How many times have we heard these types of statements and questions? There are behaviors that without harming us or anyone else awaken the judgment of those around us. Our parents, partners, friends question what we do and how we dress. In some way, it seems that they are trying to impose a standard criterion accepted as socially correct.

If we showed up at home with blue hair, criticism would soon appear. However, what’s wrong with going with blue or orange hair? It is not normal? It may not be normal because normal can be seen as what the majority does. But the fact of not being normal, is it negative? If we deviate from “correct” behavior, are we acting inappropriately? It is important to emphasize the inappropriateness since the criticisms are usually negative: “it is not normal to have blue hair”, in other words “you are a little crazy for going like that, you should go like everyone else”.

We must ask ourselves the question of whether being different or strange is bad because it implies something negative or simply because we don’t like it. What difference does it make if a friend dyes himself blue or puts dilators in his ears? Does it affect us in any way? No. So we are only making a value judgment. And we must be careful since We can condition or hurt people who only want to experience life and be themselves..

You might be interested…