Questioning Normality

These past few years I’ve started to question a lot of widely held beliefs. We, as a society, hold on tightly to what we deem as normal, but normality is relative. It is relative based on time in history, social status, economic status, race, culture, religion, and a million other factors.

If those around us are choosing to do something, in wide numbers, I suppose that is what becomes “normal” in our own society. The path that has been paved is the path that many will follow. Do we choose to follow it because we want to? Because it is easiest? Are we too scared to forge our own paths and get lost? Or, are we boxed into a certain number of alternatives, limited by our few options to rebel?

I recently read a book called The Art of Non-Conformity by Chris Guillebeau. One section in his book describes a thought experiment with a group of monkeys in a cage. It goes as follows:

“This human behavior of not challenging assumptions reminds me of an experiment psychologists performed years ago. They started with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, they hung a banana on a string with a set of stairs placed under it. Before long, a monkey went to the stairs and started to climb towards the banana. As soon as he started up the stairs, the psychologists sprayed all of the other monkeys with ice cold water. After a while, another monkey made an attempt to obtain the banana.  As soon as his foot touched the stairs, all of the other monkeys were sprayed with ice cold water. It’s wasn’t long before all of the other monkeys would physically prevent any monkey from climbing the stairs. Now, the psychologists shut off the cold water, removed one monkey from the cage and replaced it with a new one. The new monkey saw the banana and started to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attacked him.  After another attempt and attack, he discovered that if he tried to climb the stairs, he would be assaulted. Next they removed another of the original five monkeys and replaced it with a new one. The newcomer went to the stairs and was attacked. The previous newcomer took part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, they replaced a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey tried to climb the stairs, he was attacked. The monkeys had no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they were beating any monkey that tried. After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys had ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approached the stairs to try for the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know that’s the way it’s always been around here.” MM then concludes: “People sometimes do the same in the workplace. How many times have you heard “It has always been done this way. Don’t mess with what works.” Instead of challenging these assumptions, many of us, like the monkeys, simply keep reproducing what has been done before. It’s the easiest thing to do.”

Not only does this happen in the workplace, but it happens in almost every aspect of our lives. Challenging widely held beliefs is hard because sometimes you don’t even know what a viable alternative could be. You don’t know the downside of rebelling against the system. You don’t understand the long term impacts any decision could make.

Sometimes all you have to do is start with a question. The answers will come when you’re ready. Or maybe, they never will. Who knows? At first, these questions may seem silly. But as you dig deeper, you realize they are not. Everything we do with our lives requires some sort of further investigation. The choices we make are important, and many are difficult, if not impossible to reverse. If we don’t start questioning, we just end up following what has been done by those before us.

Some questions I’ve been grappling with lately are: Why are we monogamous? Is love a limited resource? Can our love for a person diminish the amount of love we have for a different person? Where is the line between platonic love and romantic love, and why do we often view this as binary?

Generally, the goal of love and the goal of many peoples’ lives, is to find one partner. One person who we can spend our entire life with. We believe that the love we have for them is so powerful that it warrants being with them forever. Having a family. Buying a $450,000 house that we pay off for 30 years. Having the same conversations over and over again. Trapping ourselves in a routine. Ignoring our curiosities about other people. Building a slight resentment overtime, but not doing anything about it unless it gets so bad that we decide to leave.

I’ve never been married, so maybe my view of it is different from the experience itself. I don’t know. Maybe the idea of being committed to one person forever is terrifying to me because I’ve never been committed to anything forever. To me, it sounds a little bit possessive. It is almost as if we own our partner. They are our possession. Once we have that shiny and expensive ring on our finger, it symbolizes so much more than just a rock. It symbolizes ownership of another human being.

Perhaps marriage is something I’d have to experience to fully understand. Maybe it is beautiful in ways I just cannot comprehend at this point in my life. But the issue I have with this institution stems from the fact that it is framed as the only way. It is pushed on everyone at such a young age. It follows the typical path: go to school, maybe college, get a job, get married, have a family, buy a house, work, retire, die.

This path is the paved road I was talking about earlier. So many people do it; it has been done a million times. It is easy to follow this basic formula. But, how can one design a new formula? How can we trust that the decisions we make are better off in the long run? Does it even matter?