If someone would ask this question to people who know me a little more, most of them would say, a little reluctantly, a little unsure - “Yaar kuchh to alag sochata aur karta hai, normal to nahin hai” (He is a little different, he is not normal). If you ask me the same question, I would say, “Surely not”.
What about normalcy? This morning, when I was meditating, suddenly this thought came to me that normalcy doesn’t have to do with the word ‘normal’ as we use it in equivalence with the word natural (for example, it is normal to take wine for your host when invited for dinner or as Christiaan told me yesterday, it is normal not to open the same wine for dinner) but it is rather to do with a derivative of the word, used in statistical or economic context – normalize, which means dividing an array of numbers by their mean or scale up or down quantity or price of a thing to set it to 1.
The etymology of normal leads to ‘norm’ and in one instant that makes it different from the word natural. In this context, it would be ideal to quote the following definition of normalization from sociological point of view:
Normalization is a process whereby behaviours and ideas are made to seem normal" through repetition, or through ideology, propaganda, etc., often to the point where they appear natural and taken for granted.
Thinking of human behaviour and tendencies and pondering over them in light of ‘natural’ normal or sociological normalization, all would agree that what is done by most people or what most would instinctively do is normal. For example, even married or committed men don’t shy and rather come bold in arguing that flirting with or eyeing other women is normal.
For babus (clerks), bribery is normal. For babus of the west, not taking bribe might be normal. For people in India, working overtime is normal. For people, at least in Netherlands, not staying in office after 5 pm is normal. Always wanting more money and power, always appearing good and talking sweet, patriotism, being crazy about one’s girlfriend or boyfriend, sympathizing with sorrow of others (and hardly empathizing) and so many things are normal. Forgetting god in good times and remembering in bad times (and boldly or sheepishly blaming him too) is also normal.
In the light of above arguments, normalcy in first context (‘natural’ normal) is union of items, which are socially acceptable (norms!) and instinctively human. What about normalcy in context of the meanings statistically or economically normalized have?
Take for example 10 people, with asset holding in proportion of 1 to 10 (i.e. 1, 2 …, 9, 10). What would be the normalized asset holding. Too simplistic I know, but well to start with. I would quote the principle of communism that my father told one very ardent communist once:
Communism means working according to capacity and payment according to need.
What about the everlasting quench for money and power. I don’t want any? Doesn’t help, can’t live. I want all. Surely you are in mess. Normal, in this case, would be something, which is good enough and sufficient for my needs.
To talk about behavior, I must admit openly that I am tired of western politeness. Saying things even when most of the times you don’t feel them. What is normal? Of course there are times when I feel thankful of people, of God and I should convey it. Or at least feel the gratitude. To say it mechanically every time – sorry!
To talk about politeness – being nice even when you feel like shouting at someone. Is that normal? I remember a very good incident when we went for a full Sunday satsangh (group meditation) program to Brussels and we had one of our European center-in-charge there. He was in a little rough mood today and somebody asked him why is he in such a rough mood when he has come for such an event. He replied curtly, something like, “I am not expected to be nice all the time”.
I have brought myself to stalemate because all my reasons are indicating that normalcy has to do with being natural. Anywhere you feel a stretch from natural while doing something – there must be some deviation from natural.
But mind you, being natural is not being instinctive which most of us take to be natural or normal. For most of us, instinct is a product of processed information and experiences. Bad pizza at New York Pizza and there is an instinct the next time. Friend says Switzerland is heaven on earth and there is an instinct.
So our instincts don’t only determine our future actions but also our response. On the other hand, natural behaviour is a product of nature with nothing in background.
I am sure life would be more simple and happy in the normal I see. My experience of this ongoing transformation is that the spaghetti in the brain dissolves and you feel a relief you can’t imagine. Hopefully the dissolved spaghetti would evaporate one day with nothing left.
I am sure readers would find arguments and exceptions to my reasons and I would be the most happy to learn about them (when Richard Bach can find loopholes in Christ’s saying, my arguments are hardly at stake).
To end with, I would quote Richard Bach from Illusions; I think he hints a way back to real normalcy:
In order to live free and happily, you must sacrifice boredom. It is not always an easy sacrifice.
