Definition and Stigma (Repost)
Notes: This is a reupload of an older post I made on a few other sites. Overall, I haven't changed my opinions, but I did edit a couple words here to bring out the point better.
***
A while ago, I was talking to the parent of a psychology student. She told me that her son regretted taking the course because he could no longer see people as “normal,” and it seems like “everyone’s psychotic.”
It got me thinking about labels and organisation systems. Without a sort of definition attached to someone or something, they’re undefined and thus are more easily accepted by others to change.
For instance, say you meet a person at school or the workplace. They’re relatively friendly but quite sporadic and rather scatterbrained. You assume this is just a quirk, and that they’re just a little bit ditzy.
However, one day they tell you that the reason for this is because they have ADHD. Suddenly, you behave more sensitively to this person. You laugh less at their all-too-often forgetfulness. Maybe you ask a little bit too many questions about whether or not they feel okay, or if their mind is “into it” enough to complete a task. You treat them extremely differently.
And yet, they’re still the exact same person you first met. Without a label, the ADHD definition, the person is treated like “normal,” someone who is able to change and grow and overcome challenges. However, once the ADHD definition is associated with the person, they’re treated like a fragile being, because ADHD must be suffocating to that person, and they can’t do anything about it, right?
Well, the thing is, there’s a social stigma to about any definition, and usually the stigma is measured by relativity to “normality.” If something’s ‘normal,’ that’s neutral. If it’s something that isn’t desirable to “normal” people, then it’s a negative stigma. On the contrary, if it’s a trait that is highly desirable to “normal” people, it has a positive stigma.
ADHD means a person is “hyperactive compared to 'normal’ people,” and “is identified by being more [than a 'normal’ person] easily distracted.” DID is when “a person has multiple individual personas, and not one [which is 'the norm’].” These are great extremes.
We can even take simpler things, like being an athlete is “being more adept at a sport than 'normal.’"
These stigmas aren’t bad per se, because it can be useful for determining how we treat a person (someone with anxiety compared to someone without), but you don’t want to over-apply them. So it’s better to have an objective understanding of a label word.
Remember, these words-anxiety, talented, DID, etc.- are just a way for people to organise themselves. Labels are just words used to describe someone or something, not shape a stagnant definition for them.
Because it’s true that a person with ADHD processes and experiences their life differently, but these are merely caused by the physical formation of the brain. They are capable of learning how to overcome their individual challenges by themselves (see: Finding Dory), and finding a name for their brain process helps them both emotionally and practically (where they can find methods to aid in keeping focus). They can grow, they can change. They are a person formed by their own successes, experiences, and struggles. You and your work partner might not have OCD, or ADHD, or social anxiety. You know you’re doing this job to make a steady income and support yourself, but your work partner is using this job as an experience for getting into a larger career. You both might be “normal,” but are you both able to be clumped into this definition of “normal?”
With this in mind, it makes you see people all as very separate individuals, growing and changing constantly to improve the self, experiencing life in very different ways.
Regardless of whether someone has ADHD or is a stellar, world-ranking musician, in the individualistic-experiences, they’re just as "normal” as you are, regardless of the social stigma attached to their labels. And, as said by the psychology student, nobody is normal!