The Space Between “Normals”

At any given time there are multiple narratives. Yet often it’s posed that there’s one dominant narrative. There’s an in-group that follows the dominant narrative. There’s an out-group that doesn’t. But is it ever this simple?

When someone subscribes to this in-group/out-group dynamic, it sets up limitations and assumptions. One assumption can be that those who appear to be aligned with the dominant narrative are %100 behind it. Or that they don’t have some type of internal conflict if they choose to go along with it.

Perhaps there’s some range of degrees to how fully on-board someone stands with a narrative. When thinking or speaking in terms of in-group/out groups (us Vs. them) dynamics, it limits so much perspective of what can bridge various viewpoints amongst the collective of individuals. That’s a pretty big limitation if clinging to the in-group/out-group framing!

If someone identifies with the out-group (I’ve done this at times!) they choose to frame the separation. The separation can further impose a limiting belief that there are few in conflict with the dominant narrative. This limited belief may be false.

One such example of a false limiting belief is that we (as a society) are part of the “New Normal.” Sure, there are visions of the new normal being set in motion by prominent voices in media, government, and health institutions, but are individuals actually currently living in a ‘new’ normal?

I’m of the belief that society is still in the ‘old’ normal. And yes, I say ‘old’ to off-set the reference of ‘new’ as prescribed to the word ‘normal.’ This distinction leaves ‘old’ and ‘new’ to cancel each other out, leading to the assertion that life is currently normal after all. Yes, in a manner of speaking this is part of what’s “normal.” But calling something “normal” isn’t definitive enough, so what to call this time?

I feel we’re in a transition of ‘old’ and ‘new.’ And I’d declare that what society is currently living, is not the “New Normal”… yet. I’m more a proponent of framing this as “visions of the new normal” or glimpses of it. As it gives some room to acknowledge that it really isn’t here right now. It gives me pause to be reminded there’s a space between what would be considered the ‘new’ normal and when/where we’re at now.

Part of my reasoning in stating that we (society) are still in the ‘old’ normal is due to been my perspective that what many are experiencing (in 2020 & 202) is the surfacing or unveiling of previous trauma. A cumulation of unresolved emotional strife revealing itself due to lack of integration and shadow work of what’s been hidden until this point.

To give some sort of name to it, this is what I’ve been referring to as the ‘old’ normal. Really what I’m meaning is that it’s still their ‘normal’ that they’re living, they just haven’t seen this portion of their life until now, and it’s hitting them hard.

For myself, and others in a similar mindset/heartset, there’s been previous integration and work around previous traumas. Therefore the very traumatic occurrences during 2020 & 2021 haven’t resonated as overwhelming for me. In being less overwhelmed or triggered by these events, it leaves room for me to see that there’s indeed a vision of a ‘new’ normal that is yet to come. It’s on the horizon (and some would argue as to how soon that will be).

I feel best suited to focus more on the here and now. In the here and now, it’s my belief that a majority of the people that appear to be agreeing with the dominant narrative, aren’t even in a clear enough state to fully back any narrative or agenda, let alone the dominant one being enforced by media and the government.

I’m not necessarily saying that individuals are incapable — I’m not rendering them powerless. I’m wanting to imply that they’re not necessarily fully on board with it, even though it may appear they are. As Charles Eisenstein recently shared with his recent video about the “Emperor Has No Clothes” parable, and how we can view the current Covid narrative through this lens.

So I come back to the question: Can someone following along with the dominant narrative, whilst having some kind of conflict with that dominant narrative? How would this be determined? Are some individuals choosing to appear aligned with the in-group, rather than acknowledge the conflict they may have with it?

While I do feel that those outwardly questioning the dominant narrative are fewer in number. Does it benefit those individuals to consider themselves part of the out-group within this in-group/out-group framing? Does it benefit them to believe they’re the only one experiencing conflict or confusion? What if those who are questioning are actually experiencing less conflict than some of those following the dominant narrative?

I don’t presume that those who aren’t questioning the dominant narrative are void of some level of conflict with it? I want to be open to hear if they are. Provide the space between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ normals to allow the various inner conflicts to be revealed.

There could be a whole big category of individuals who are in some level of conflict, yet appear to be going along with it. This is possible, right? Do they feel like they have the space to voice their individual perspectives? How can I make room for nuanced perceptions of what one believes the narrative to be?

If there’s one thing I’ve learned about other humans and their behavior, it’s that they can be pretty good at hiding their internal conflicts. At least keeping it hidden for some amount of time. But for how long can it remain hidden? I believe society will be seeing more of those internal conflicts coming to the surface… over the next months, perhaps years. Can we set a period of time set to occur between the projected ‘normals?’