Defining ‘Normal’

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/define-normal-1.jpg

How do you tell if you're in the box or out of it?

Most of us spend some portion of our lives pondering if we’re “normal”. Is being “normal” in the box or out of it? The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) estimates that more than 1 in 4 Americans have a mental disorder. Most people consider someone with a mental disorder to have behaviors, feelings, and thoughts that deviate from the norm. Someone who is not considered “normal” does not “fit in” with what is socially and medically deemed “standard”. When we contemplate what it really means to be “normal”, we often associate what is “normal” with whether the way we think or act is the same or similar to the majority of other people and society. When we evaluate our own behaviors, we decide how to act based on the established parameters of what is considered acceptable, or normal, social behavior. To many, normal means average or standard. In addition, social standards strongly influence the idea of what is “normal”. By examining society’s laws of what is culturally considered “normal”, we are left with many questions on how these perceptions came about. Who defines what is “normal” and what is not? How do we construct what is in the box and what is out? As seen through the eye of the beholder, what is considered “normal” is filtered through the lens of society.

Here is a link to a video:

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/tlc/28826-understanding-genes-and-human-behavior-video.htm

Understanding: Genes and Human Behavior

“On the Learning Channel series "Understanding: The Power of Genes", researchers try to find the link between genes and human behavior”.

This video succinctly discusses the complex relationship between genes and human behavior. The video claims that “genes may predispose us to act certain ways, even when it comes to such things as taking risks”. The actions of jumping off the high-dive into the pool and/or deciding to walk back down the stairs and stay on ground are, according to the video, the “character traits in genes we inherit”. The video addresses two contrasting behaviors that are correlated with the “novelty seeking gene” and the “anxiety gene”. The “novelty seeking gene makes his (or her) brain respond to dopamine” and it is “released in a positive way”. The “anxiety gene controls serotonin” and “makes his (or her) brain feel bad, anxious, worried”. As seen in the video, individuals who possess either of these genes tend to behave in two very different ways. What is felt as novel, or exciting, for one person, may make another person feel anxious or terrified. Are both behaviors considered to be “normal”? Or is one to be considered a more acceptable social behavior?

The articles by Rose, Talbot, and Elliott, speak to the issue of over-medicalization of behaviors that are not considered “normal”. In the book, “Better Than Well”, by Carl Elliott, the chapter, “The Face Behind the Mask”, refers to America’s love-hate relationship with what Elliot calls ‘enhancement technologies’ that is present in our society. The author claims that before the 20th century, Americans classified people by their character, and in the early 20th century, people were classified by their personality. Elliott states that character was “about the depths beneath the surface, about what is on the inside as well as what other people see”, and personality was about “the idea of self presentation” (60). In turn, “Americans started to take on the idea that we all put on a mask for the world. Everyone is a performer” (Elliot, 60). The goal was to be “socially successful”, in which “not only do we have to behave in certain ways, we have to be certain ways as well” (Elliot, 60). In addition, the author addresses the medicalization of the personality trait of shyness. The medicalization of shyness lead to it’s diagnosis in the DSM as a mental disorder, first categorized as a “social phobia”, and then the term “social anxiety disorder” was created. To help “cure” these disorders, Paxil was advertised as the drug of choice. Within the last century, there has been an explosive response to these disorders and prescribing drugs such as Prozac, Zoloft, and Cymbalta. Those who benefit most from the diagnosis of “mental disorders” are the pharmaceutical companies. These companies are gaining profit by giving out the “magical pill” that will cure your “disorder”. The pharmaceutical companies begin to overtake scientific studies and results and become dependent to mental disorders by selling these “illnesses” through advertisement and persuade society to purchase these pills as a result of self and misdiagnosis.

Has this become the “norm” of our society?



http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jun2008/PillMan.jpg

The above image represents society’s current obsession with treating behaviors that are not considered “normal” with pills. Pills are constantly being created and taken for everything. Has our society become dependent on pills that claim to “cure all”? Pharmaceutical companies have created various assortments of drugs to treat different conditions that science, and we as a culture, have come to medicalize. In addition, pharmaceutical companies spend millions each year on the advertisement of these drugs to be represented in the media. These constant reminders surround our everyday lives and send the message that you could possibly be suffering from one of these disorders and need a certain pill to “fix it”.

Nikolas Rose’s article, “Neurochemical Selves”, refers to the relationship between drugs and behaviors by arguing that “drugs do not so much seek to normalize a deviant but to correct anomalies, to adjust the individual and restore his or her capacity to enter the circuits of everyday life” (210). In addition, Rose states, “While our desires, moods, and discontents might previously have been mapped onto a psychological space, they are now mapped upon the body itself, or one particular organ of the body—the brain. And this brain is itself understood in a particular register. In significant ways, I suggest, we have become “neurochemical selves” (188). The phenomenon of neurochemical selves is deeply embedded in the process of modifying the abilities in our life’s work to become “active” citizens, devoid of “anomalies”. Rose states, “In the eugenic age, mental disorders were pathologies, a drain on a national economy. Today, they are vital opportunities for the creation of private profit and national economic growth” (209). This suggests that people and their mental disorders can be considered as a means for “profit” and “economic growth”, which reiterates the obsession with diagnosing mental disorders and the creation of drugs as treatment for these disorders.

Doctors have begun to over-prescribe drugs and over-diagnose disorders, which has lead to the problem of prescription drug abuse. The article, “Brain Gain”, by Margaret Talbot, discusses the over-medicalization of “disorders” and over-prescription of drugs to treat them. This pushes peoples desire to “perform” even better, to be considered “normal” and a pill is needed in order to compete in this vicious cycle. The article describes students’ desires to boost cognitive functions, in which, “People in her position could strive to get regular exercise and plenty of intellectual stimulation, both of which have been shown to help maintain cognitive function. But maybe they’re already doing so and want a bigger mental rev-up, or maybe they want something easier than sweaty workouts and Russian novels: a pill”(4). This represents our society’s desire towards improving ourselves and “taking the easy way out”. In western society, we have created a society based on the norms of getting things done fast and right, in order to get ahead in life. Talbot states, “Every era, it seems, has its own defining drug. Neuroenhancers are perfectly suited for the anxiety of white-collar competition in a floundering economy” (11). Many of us have become dependent on these neuroenhancing drugs to help us get ahead and succeed in life; these drugs have become “normal” to our society. These drugs are enabled by pharmaceutical companies and doctors who prescribe them. Should our society sit back and let drugs overrule our lives? Why can’t we be happy with who we really are? What really is “normal”?

Sources:

Elliot, Carl. 2003. “The Face Behind the Mask” and “Amputees by Choice.” In Better Than Well: American Medicine Meets the American Dream. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. Pp. 54-76, 208-236.

Rose, Nikolas. 2007. “Neurochemical Selves.” In The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Pp. 187-223.

Talbot, Margaret, “Brain Gain: The Underground World of ‘Neuroenhancing’ Drugs.” The New Yorker, April 27, 2009.