What "Normal" Is

As some of my readers may recall, I've been taking a graduate school class with my husband over the past couple of months. I'm able to do this because his school graciously allows partners to audit (take part, but receive no official credit) one class per year. The experience has been an emotional one for me on many levels, but has failed to significantly challenge me intellectually for the most part.

The "emotional" aspect has come from being faced with the various personalities of the participants (of which there are about a dozen) and the perspectives they present. All of them are younger than me, and have significantly different (and more limited) life experiences. Sometimes, I'm very frustrated at the myopia they exhibit, but much more frustration is elicited by the lack of critical thinking that is displayed.

The dearth of critical thinking is shown in a variety of areas, but one in which many psychology students struggle is with the notion of normality. At my husband's school in particular, an institution which is more expansive, open-minded, and embraces a holistic approach to living, healing, and mental illness, the idea that "normal" can be defined is more resisted than among the population at large. These are people who are in that place because they reject conventional thinking on multiple levels, and that means they do not want to pigeonhole or embrace concepts that are as limited as a notion of "normal".

While I think it is important not to try to reshape everyone into a round shape so they can be placed in the corresponding round hole, the notion of "normal" is of value and embracing it should not be viewed as a destructive pattern of thought. The idea of defining it should not be seen as an effort to marginalize, isolate, or pathologize people, but rather to understand states which create the greatest functionality and healing.

I'm talking about the concept of "normal" here because, in terms of body weight, the idea of "normal" is very controversial. Often, it is medically determined in a manner which simplifies rather than rationally explains why body size matters. That being said, I don't believe the concept of a "normal" weight has to be considered a toxic means of straitjacketing the populace into fitting into socially or medically determined forms. A more complex and nuanced notion of "normal" in terms of all things, not just weight, is of value. To that end, I have been pondering the idea of "normal" as of late.

The first thing that is important to keep in mind is that "normal" is a relative state. What is more, it is relative within various "systems". For example, hearing voices, taking hallucinogenic compounds, and sacrificing animals is normal within some tribal systems that have shamanistic practices. That being said, though these activities and experiences are generally normal, they are only appropriate (and therefore "normal") in certain settings. Even in societies in which hearing voices is a normal part of ritual experiences, it is not a normal part of everyday life. A person who is actively psychotic and hears voices outside of the ritual setting (and who is not an appointed individual for whom such experiences are considered part of their role) are definitively deemed abnormal and will be socially isolated, rejected, or marginalized.

Similarly, certain types of dress are utterly normal within a certain system, but would be considered inappropriate and "abnormal" in more mundane ones. If I were to wear an evening gown to an orchestral performance, it would be seen as "normal". If I were to wear one to work, it would be considered "abnormal". Context matters. The system you are operating within determines whether or not you are "normal".

This leads me to talk of body size and appearance. Part of what got me intro trouble recently on Facebook was talking about one of the more zealous fat activists and how she looks. I asserted that her appearance, which is far outside the mainstream in ways unrelated to her weight, muddles her ability to represent the oppression that fat people endure. In no way did I say that the obese and especially the super obese (so-called "death fats", of which I have been a part of for the vast majority of my life) are not treated abysmally and with great cruelty. However, what I said was that her extremely atypical choice of style of appearance muddled the picture significantly and made her a poor choice of example for how fat people are publicly humiliated.

The truth is all people who appear "strange" will elicit abuse, and I cited an article in a psychology journal in support of this notion. Unfortunately, I can't link to it here because it's an academic article behind a pay wall that I could only access via my husband's academic account, but you'll have to trust me when I say the study exists and that what I say about it is true. That study was conducted with normal weight people who dressed, styled their hair, etc. in highly atypical fashion. They wore large polka dot prints or other "loud" patterns and displayed unusual hair coloring. The purpose of the study was to measure the responses of strangers who encountered these unusually groomed and attired people in public. The results showed that, quite overwhelmingly, "abnormal" appearance elicited aggression. This happened when weight was not a factor.

So, I think if you are going to hold your treatment out there as a fat person and say that you are abused, you have to "control" for this factor. It muddles the picture if you are both very fat and dress in a manner which the society you are operating in deems "abnormal". If your clothing and style choices are far outside the norm, it will be very difficult to tell whether you are treated poorly because you are fat or because of your unusual style. Beyond confusing the true motivation among bystanders for their negative attention, it also undermines the sympathy of others when hearing your story. They will look at the strangely dressed person and not think, "she's abused because she's fat," but rather, "she's abused because she dresses so weirdly." It undercuts the potential for empathy and harms the cause of fat activism.

My talking about this is not to be confused with condoning the abuse of anyone based on appearance. I don't care what people dress like or look like. I spent more than enough years of my life being treated like a walking pile of fat garbage to condone the abusive behavior people heap on others for their appearance. What I'm doing here is talking about the reality, not making an excuse for it.

The reality, very likely, is informed by evolutionary forces. Our distant ancestors that responded aggressively to those who appeared markedly different very likely survived. Those who were tolerant and accepted likely did not. Conformity promotes recognition among the tribe and means that you will see the enemy as the enemy and a friend as a friend. Bystanders who see a stranger who looks weird (or acts strangely) are therefore fearful and become aggressive and they probably don't give a second thought to whether or not the response is rational.

There's probably some part of their brain in the amygdala (the home of our aggressive and fearful responses for the most part) that activates. In order not to have those feelings, they must engage in active suppression and process cognitively. Such processing requires awareness, energy, and the taking of an advanced perspective that people are unlikely to do simply to benefit a random stranger. The question of whether they "should" do it is another one entirely. Of course, they "should", but we do not yet live in a world in which children are taught to question and mitigate this response at a young age, and that is where the process should start.

My purpose in broaching this topic is not to explain what happened on Facebook and upset someone else. This is actually only part of the picture and, as I said before, I was at fault because of how I characterized the individual in question (in a manner which was uncharacteristically derogatory and which I apologized for twice). This is just the start of my talking about conclusions I've reached about the "fat mindset" and my feelings about obesity as a mental disorder. The reason I'm talking about "normal" and how "abnormal" is to set the stage for what will no doubt be a series of posts about the topic that will lead up to my conclusions.

The bottom line is that being super fat is not "normal" within the current systems in most societies. Aggressive responses to abnormal appearance are, unfortunately, a part of human nature regardless of the reasons or shape of that "abnormality". Well-meaning and self-serving attempts to "normalize" atypical behavior across the board will not change the reality of human biochemical responses to that which is markedly different and one cannot control the behavior of others, particularly when they are operating in line with societal norms and biochemical responses beyond their control. Just as they cannot easily regulate their heart beat, they cannot stop the rush of chemicals that create an aggressive response when they experience something which is not normal within their system. This is, in essence, where the seeds of what is considered pathological are sown.

"Normal"

My goal since starting to change my weight has always been about "normalizing" rather than "radicalizing" my life. This is actually a risky thing to assert, because there will always be people who take issue with the use of the word "normal". They will ask "what is normal?" They will question your right to define "normal" for others, or even yourself.

I will grant that it is one of those words that is loaded with difficulty and some may even consider its usage pejorative. They may feel that we define "normal" only to allow ourselves to have the luxury of identifying what is "abnormal". There are also problems because "normal" is not only culturally specific, but geographically relevant. What are considered "normal" manners in New York City aren't going to be "normal" for Peoria, Illinois.

All of that being said, I think that most of us would understand and recognize what is "normal" in terms of a relationship with our bodies and food. Essentially, normal relationships are devoid of disordered thinking and acting. Eating should be linked to hunger or a need for energy in the body. One can even say that it "should" be related to stress, though only to the extent that some extra food helps supply the energy necessary to escape that stress, not to the point where the eating itself creates a new and more debilitating source of stress.

"Normal" can also be associated with "average". Of course, averages are statistically derived and current averages are quite skewed. The average American eats somewhere in the vicinity of 3600 calories per day. That doesn't make that number one which we should consider "normal". For my purposes, I define "normal" as the amount of food required to maintain a body weight at which I am physically healthy and comfortable, and at which I suffer no punishment or mobility issues in the greater world based on body size.

It's important to recognize that my "normal" isn't everyone else's normal. There is often an effort made on the part of bodily acceptance advocates to chuck out any notion of "normality" in order to help people feel better about themselves. Personally, I think that you can't fool people by pretending that weighing 400 lbs. is "normal" by saying that the term cannot and should not be defined. I think it's more valuable to accept your abnormality as something you personally are completely comfortable with than to try and say, "my body is normal."

Acceptance isn't about normality, though it does come more easily for those who are considered normal. In fact, for many people, they have no desire to be "normal", and that's their prerogative. It just isn't mine. I've suffered all my life because I'm not "normal" and I'd like to at least spend a little time at normal so that I could see if there's less suffering going on from that vantage point. It may change nothing, but at least I'd like to have that experience as a point of comparison.

Since I started very near 400 lbs., and knew I was very far from normal, I've been endeavoring to adjust all aspects of my life slowly to reach what I think may be "normal". Part of my problem was that I didn't know what "normal" was for much of my life, but I could see around me that it wasn't how I was living. A big part of that was how I was raised. If you're not taught something in your own home about daily living, where are you going to learn it? It's not like you can up and move into another person's house and observe everything they do.

One of the tiny little things that I noticed about "normal" people came to me when my husband and I were house-sitting for my in-laws. My sister-in-law and her husband resided in an attached house with my father-in-law and mother-in-law, and we needed something or other and I checked their refrigerator for it. I noticed that there was one tiny little Reese's peanut butter cup miniature in the freezer. It sat there all alone and uneaten. I thought about how it could just be left there. How could anyone resist eating up that last peanut butter cup?

Normal people didn't eat when they weren't hungry just because tasty treats were on hand. Normal people didn't eat until they couldn't support their body weight and develop terrible back pain. Normal people didn't gain so much weight that they couldn't go to movie theaters, ride amusement park rides, or eat in restaurants for fear that the seating wouldn't accommodate their girth. Normal people didn't have to worry about buying two tickets for a plane ride or that chairs might have arms on them. Normal people weren't slaves to their relationship with food.

The aforementioned types of things were a big part of the sort of "normal" I wanted to achieve. I wanted to be the sort of person who could blithely walk away from or leave behind morsels of candy, just as I can walk away from something I want to buy but don't really need. I wanted to be the sort of person who didn't have to eat a whole candy bar, or bag of cookies once I'd torn open the pack. I wanted to be so blasé and blithe about food when hunger was not in play that I could simply leave it sit there until I really wanted it, or throw it out if it wasn't that good. I wanted food to have that little meaning to me. Of course, I had no idea how to get from who I was to "normal". I only knew I wanted to get there, desperately.

It has taken most of my life to reach a point where I could deal with myself so that I could be close to this point of self-defined normality. It's not about denying urges or the siren call of tasty food. It's about not having the urges or hearing the calls. I didn't want to be the sort of person who fought impulses to eat and triumphantly won and patted myself on the back for every pizza slice I passed on or every bit of cake I turned down. I wanted to be the sort who simply didn't have such strong, frequent or out of control impulses at all. I don't think I could live the rest of my life at a lower weight if I had to keep fighting such urges several times a day, everyday, forever. It'd drive me around the bend.

I think that not fighting this fight and winning (or losing) is what I consider "normal". It's probably as much or more about me seeing food in a normal manner than about me being "normal". I feel closer to "normal" now than I have ever felt in my life, and it's important to note that it has absolutely nothing to do with numbers on a scale or my body size.