29/10/2026
IS BEING “NORMAL” BECOMING THE NEW STIGMA?
“In an insane world, sane people appear to be insane.”
What if the problem isn't that you don't fit into society, but that we've become so accustomed to certain behaviours that we no longer question whether they're healthy?
Let's start with some numbers.
According to mental health research involving adults in England:
- 20.2% met the criteria for at least one assessed common mental health condition.
- 13.9% screened positive for ADHD.
- 7.5% experienced generalised anxiety disorder (GAD).
- 3.8% experienced a depressive episode.
- 2.6% experienced phobias.
- 2.2% experienced obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).
- 1.9% screened positive for bipolar disorder.
- 1% experienced panic disorder.
- 0.5% experienced a psychotic disorder.
These figures reflect different measurement periods and overlapping populations. A positive screening result is not a clinical diagnosis, and these percentages cannot simply be added together.
But these statistics raise a far more uncomfortable question for me.
WHAT DOES IT ACTUALLY MEAN TO BE “NORMAL” TODAY?
Sometimes, I find myself observing behaviour that appears irrational, inconsistent, or even destructive.
And when I respond with what I believe to be logic, calmness, and principles, I'm occasionally met with resistance, misunderstanding, or emotional reactions that seem completely disproportionate.
Then something strange happens.
I begin questioning myself.
Am I overreacting?
Are my expectations of others unrealistic?
Or have certain unhealthy behaviours become so widespread that we've simply started accepting them as normal?
Sometimes, I genuinely feel as though I'm the one carrying the stigma of being “normal.”
But here's where I have to challenge my own thinking.
How do I know that my response is rational and someone else's isn't?
Does a diagnosis listed in the DSM-5 automatically make someone's behaviour irrational?
Absolutely not.
And does the absence of a psychiatric diagnosis make me rational, emotionally mature, or psychologically healthy?
Of course not.
A diagnosis is not a judgement of someone's character, intelligence, or worth. And having no diagnosis is not a certificate of common sense.
Someone can have no psychiatric diagnosis whatsoever and still manipulate others, avoid responsibility, hurt people, and make terrible decisions.
Equally, someone living with depression, ADHD, bipolar disorder, or another condition can demonstrate remarkable self-awareness, empathy, emotional intelligence, and rational thinking.
So where does the real problem lie?
Perhaps in our obsession with labelling people.
The DSM-5 provides a framework for identifying patterns of symptoms and supporting clinical decisions. It is not a handbook for distinguishing good people from bad people, rational people from irrational people, or emotionally mature individuals from immature ones.
What concerns me is a society increasingly interested in people's labels rather than the consequences of their behaviour.
A society where diagnoses can sometimes be used to discredit individuals, while at other times being treated as excuses for actions that still require accountability.
I don't need to know someone's diagnosis to say:
“Your behaviour is hurting me.”
And I don't need a diagnosis of my own to admit:
“My reaction was inappropriate.”
Perhaps this is where psychological health begins to mean something beyond the absence of a disorder.
In our capacity for self-reflection.
In our willingness to take responsibility.
In our ability to regulate emotions, challenge our assumptions, and recognise when we are wrong.
Not in believing that because someone else has a diagnosis, we must automatically be right.
Because perhaps the greatest irony of all would be becoming irrational while desperately trying to prove how rational we are.
So I'll leave you with this question:
In a world increasingly obsessed with psychological labels, are we still capable of judging behaviours without judging people?
Or has the word “normal” lost its meaning altogether?
