There is no normal, only people trying hard not to be themselves...

"The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."

-Alfred Adler

A neon sign with the phrase fear eats the soul overlaying snake

Many years ago I bought a magnet with the above quote on it. It still sits on our fridge and each time I read it, like the first time I read this quote, I know it to be profoundly true. It feels like a beacon of hope for me. Here is why...

In Internal Family Systems (IFS) we understand our mental and emotional discomfort to be a lack of connection to Self. This happens when we have abandoned our authentic selves (or parts of us) to cope and function in the world. As social beings we yearn for connection and we all fear being left alone or abandoned. This is a shared human experience.

The social world puts rules around our ability to connect, with a growing expectation of perfection. Perfection, like normal, is an impossible concept. Normal and perfection do not exist and they are therefore unachievable or unattainable. Yet, we still strive for both. The neurodivergent community understands this conflict intimately as many know they have parts that will mask in order to fit in and be accepted. They have grown up knowing that their authenticate self is not normal and not welcome. Many, like Sonny Jane Wise, argue that the list of Executive Functioning skills is a list of neuro-normative expectations. A roadmap for how we should behave and be less neurodivergent to be acceptable.

The digital social world (aka social media) has expanded our opportunities for connection exponentially and this has benefitted many in so many different ways. During the Covid years it provided a much needed means to stay connected, to stay informed and to find communities beyond our immediate physical environment or location. The neurodivergent community grew over these years as people found relatable experiences in total strangers. Couple that with the weird and wonderful filters and effects, people were able to connect a little more authentically and creatively and be themselves.

Sadly, this growth brought with it some devastating impacts. These platforms became a haven for people to bully with impunity and anonymity. Over time the need for anonymity became redundant as it became the norm to criticise someones appearance, their beliefs, their behaviour and their uniqueness. Taylor Swift's lyric "casually cruel in the name of being honest" captures this trend succinctly. This bullying is pitched as being in the best interest of the target as they are being helped to improve or be better. It became instructional; this is what you need to change to fit in or to be accepted. Our ability to stay connected is threatened with blocking and ghosting behaviours rife in the online environment. We have become less resilient to criticism because if anyone says something we do not agree with, we are challenged by or we feel offended by we no longer sit with this discomfort to understand and grow. We block it and move on. We surround ourselves only with people who agree with us.

Ben Elton speaks of this trend in his brilliant conversation with the equally brilliant Louis Theroux and in his latest live show which I had the privilege of seeing last month. I will not be able to do justice to Ben's argument here so I recommend having a listen to this chat and his comments about the perils of cancel culture. In short, he argues that in our attempt to be more inclusive, diverse and accepting we have polarised ourselves even further. We condemn people for voicing an opinion that does not align with what is socially acceptable and we cast them out. We no longer allow room for critical thinking, alternative viewpoints or simply an exploration of ideas. We are easily offended. Cancel culture has bred fear everywhere; not just on social media. People are now too fearful of thinking outside of the box or to even ask a clarifying question to understand better because someone is ready to pounce. And when they do they are not polite about it.

Cambridge University defines cancel culture as compete rejection and stopping support of someone because they have said or done something that offends you. At face value this behaviour makes sense as a means to protect oneself. However, what this definition also states is that cancelling is a way to exert control. It positions someone as the moral police limiting another’s ability to amend or learn from mistakes.

Cancel culture expects perfection. It also defines the nature of that perfection and it separates us from each other. Cancelling is a deep attack on the person and their character. It is rejection. It is the threat of abandonment realised. Cancelling does not offer a compassionate ear to understand context, mitigating circumstances or the experience of another. There is no respectful dialogue to find a healthy way forward. Surviving cancel culture requires protection and often conformity is the balm that soothes the soul. It is parts of us that protect us by conforming. These protective behaviours block our connection to Self.

Cancel culture behaviour started with good intention. The aim was to encourage acceptance of diversity and promote inclusivity. It was meant to help us connect and understand better by educating everyone of the lived experience of wounded or minority populations. It came from a compassionate place. Like most social movements or communities, the foundational intent was progress and positive growth; evolution. This intent was corrupted by fear. A fear of getting it wrong, a fear of holding a different view, a fear of being ostracised and isolated. A fear of being yourself. Fear started shaming.

Like all cultures, cancel culture developed a set of rules of engagement, standards and expectations to define acceptable behaviour for inclusion. These rules encourage or expect us to abandon or hide parts of ourselves that may not be liked or welcome. Our inner critic internalises these standards and it governs our behaviour, attempting to keep us safe. Ironically, critical thinking, as defined by the APA Dictionary is a form of directed, problem-focused thinking in which the individual tests ideas or possible solutions for errors or drawbacks. This is the role of our inner critic. Yet, this inner critic in it's attempt to protect us, limits our critical thinking or problem solving in the outside world to that which will be acceptable to our social group. If we dare think critically beyond that or be bold enough to challenge the group think we risk our connection. Again, ironically, it is when we are bold enough to challenge that we find like minded individuals and it is that critical mass that effects change to social and cultural norms.

Writing this I feel like I have gone around in a circle and argued against myself. I am not advocating for isolation or removing ourselves from our social groups or communities to give us freedom to think critically or be ourselves. Instead, I am advocating for awareness of when our social groups leave us feeling lost or uncomfortable or voiceless. I am advocating for trusting our instincts, our uniqueness and authenticity to be able to choose when and how we engage in these groups. I am advocating for courage to know when there is a need to branch out and connect elsewhere to find balance in lives between feeling connected and being true to our own needs, wellbeing and values. I advocate for finding connection with those that accept us and our uniqueness and create the safety we need to find our way back to ourselves.