I’m not normal

I’m not normal ……. and neither are you!

As a grief counselor there are certain words that I encounter every day.  Pain;  numbness;  shock;  guilt;  and anger. These are just a few of the “regulars”, and I have no argument with any of them.  They accurately describe what my clients are feeling.  But there are some unhelpful words and phrases that I try to gently steer my clients away from using if I can, and they include:  closure;  moving on;  getting over it;  and the most objectionable of them all (in my opinion) “normal”.

 I much prefer the word “typical” along with its stablemates “common”;  “frequent” and “understandable”.

So, what’s the problem with “normal”?  It seems like such an ordinary and uncontroversial word.  But it’s not.  Particularly not in the context of grief.  Originally the word entered the English language in the 17th century, derived from the Latin word “normalis”, which means “made according to a carpenter’s square, forming a right angle”.  In Later centuries “normal” acquired a number of extra meanings.

 Today, the esteemed Merriam Webster dictionary lists a dozen or so uses of the word “normal” including:

·        conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern

·        not deviating from a rule, procedure, or principle

·        generally free from physical or mental impairment or dysfunction

·        not exhibiting defect or irregularity

·        exhibiting or marked by healthy or sound functioning

·        approximating the statistical average or norm

Do you see a theme emerging here?  Look at what the list includes:  conforming; not deviating from a rule; free from mental impairment; not exhibiting defects; healthy functioning; and so on.  In other words “normal” does not so much describe a group of traits, but rather a specific target that we all should aim for.  So why is the use of that word unhelpful, or even dangerous?

One of the keys to understanding the dangers of casually using the word “normal” lies in its opposite – “abnormal”.  None of us wants our medical lab tests to be described as abnormal – from blood sugar to liver enzymes to bone density to eyeball pressure.  But within the tight parameters of a lab test, that use of the word abnormal is OK.  It refers to a specific measure of a specific component of a person’s biology.  And at that level of specificity, the “abnormal” systemic imbalance such as high blood sugar can be addressed and hopefully, fixed.  But when the phenomenon being described as “abnormal” is expanded to include a broader, multi-factorial issue such as mental health – including grief – the word loses it’s efficacy and opens the door to value judgements, stigma, and discrimination.

Time and again, clients will ask me whether their feelings, emotions, and thoughts are “abnormal”.  “Is it “abnormal” to be feeling like this?”  they will ask.  And, “it’s been six months since my spouse died, and I’m still crying every day.  Surely that’s “abnormal” isn’t it?”

Unfortunately, these conceptions of “normal” and “abnormal” are often fueled by media misrepresentations of the numerous “phases”, “stages”, “modalities”, “steps”, and “tasks” proposed by highly respected grief theorists stretching back to the beginning of the twentieth century.  Without exception, those theorists were all at pains to include the caveats, limits, and cautions that rightly attend such complex and nuanced theories. And without exception, they would all be cautious about carelessly using the word “normal”.  Unfortunately, subtlety and precision are often not the hallmarks of a tabloid “take” on complex topics.  So, despite what you might gather from the less than rigorous media, in grief there are no schedules, no timelines, no pre-ordained order of events or emotions.  No boxes to tick off as you begin to accept - and then settle in to - your new reality.  There are no “targets” to hit, no “bullseyes” to score, and definitely no value in comparing your “progress” with other “fellow grievers”.

It’s true that experienced, professionally qualified grief counselors will see certain common traits emerging in their clients, but not in any particular order or following a particular timetable.  And other key factors such as your client’s relationship with the deceased; their age; their gender; their faith, (or lack of one); the degree of close family support; and the local cultural and ritual traditions will all radically alter their experience of bereavement and grief.

So, for example would it seem “normal” to dig up your loved one to clean and polish their skeleton?  It would if you were a member of the Torajan people of Indonesia.  They have a ritual known as Ma’nene in which, once every three years, they take their deceased loved ones out of their coffins, clean them, and dress them in new clothes to commemorate their lives.  And would it seem “normal” to have a family picnic beside the grave of your grandparents?  That is what some people in South East Asia do. They are usually Buddhists or Taoists (or both) and they see nothing wrong in actively communicating with their ancestors. Traditions and rituals like these are a way for these cultures to honor and remember their loved ones, and to stay connected with them even after their death.

Indeed, a significant number of my clients, here in the US and overseas, have daily or weekly conversations with their departed loved ones.  And initially each one of them “confessed” this behavior to me with a degree of awkwardness, embarrassment and even shame. 

“There must be something wrong with me.  That can’t be normal, can it?” they ask. 

My reply is always the same: “It’s more common than you may think.  It’s also understandable, and most importantly, if it affords you some comfort and solace, why should anyone stop you?” 

Generally, they give a subdued sigh of relief and allow themselves a distant smile.

“And anyway”, I continue, “there is no such thing as normal”.