Deviation and Norms
Common social biases often create widespread misconceptions that can be difficult to dispel. A striking example for American audiences is the film Borat. This film, with its distinctively American humor poking fun at various societal stereotypes, became highly popular in the U.S. The story is set in a fictional version of Kazakhstan, with a Kazakh character named Borat as the main protagonist.
As a result, the real Kazakhstan—having no real connection to the events depicted—suffered image-related repercussions, losing millions of potential tourists who formed misguided impressions based on the movie. For another example, consider the Chinese comedy Lost in Thailand, which triggered a massive influx of Chinese tourists to Thailand. I personally witnessed this trend from its beginning to the present day.
Boundaries between Norm and Deviation: Who Defines Them and How?
This article delves into the boundary between norms and deviation, focusing on who determines these lines and how they are influenced by personality typology.
Societal Perception of Behavioral Patterns by Personality Type
Let’s examine an example similar to the Borat effect, but in relation to the social acceptability of behavioral patterns associated with different personality types. We can identify three main scenarios for how society perceives these behavioral patterns:
- Behaviors that society tolerates due to high acceptance of harmless personal traits. In such cases, behaviors are seen as peculiar but do not provoke discomfort. For instance, the IEI (INFp) type, known for introspection and existential musings, might be left to their own devices, as such traits do not contradict social norms or present any threat.
- Behaviors that society finds objectionable. Here, certain personality traits clash with cultural expectations. For example, the SLE (ESTp) type, known for its action-oriented, results-driven nature, may be perceived as too assertive or aggressive in cultures that value restraint and moderation. In these settings, SLE individuals might feel social pressure to “tone down” or “adapt.”
- Behaviors actively pursued as unacceptable. In societies with rigid cultural or religious norms, certain personality types face social rejection. For example, the ILE (ENTp), often known for eccentric and innovative ideas, might be viewed with suspicion or even persecution in traditional societies where creativity is perceived as a challenge to established values.
Norm and Deviation through the Lens of Personality Typology
To better understand how society reacts to various behavioral patterns, it’s essential to consider two key aspects of personality typology: how well a type aligns with social expectations and how it impacts the internal and external norms of that society.
Normative Patterns and Their Perception
Each personality type has a unique way of perceiving and expressing itself, which can either harmonize with or clash with societal norms. Consider the ESI (ISFj) type, which is empathetic, loyal, and duty-oriented. In societies where family values are emphasized, ESIs may be seen as exemplary members upholding social norms. However, in more individualistic cultures, this type may be viewed as overly family-focused or intrusive.
Conversely, the LIE (ENTj) type, driven by achievements and a rational approach to processes, thrives in competitive, result-oriented cultures. In more traditional or collectivist environments, LIE individuals may appear overly calculated or even cold, leading to perceptions of their behavior as “deviant.”
From Deviation to Norm: The Dynamics of Adaptation
Sometimes, behaviors initially perceived as deviant can eventually become normalized, especially if society is open to change. For example, the IEE (ENFp) type, often open to new possibilities, sociable, and adaptable, can be a pioneer in promoting social or cultural change.
In societies undergoing transformation or seeking new social models, IEEs can offer creative solutions that later become foundational to cultural shifts. However, in traditional societies, this type may be seen as unreliable due to their openness to novelty, which doesn’t always fit within rigid cultural frameworks.
Cultural and Social Constraints
Every society has boundaries that define what is acceptable and what falls outside the norm. These boundaries are influenced by history, religion, economic conditions, political climate, and other factors. Understanding these boundaries through the lens of personality typology allows for a deeper examination of why one type of behavior is considered normative, while another is seen as deviant.
For instance, the EIE (ENFj) type, known for high emotional expression and vibrant self-presentation, thrives in societies that value artistry and active social engagement. In more reserved cultures, however, EIE behavior may be seen as excessive or provocative, sometimes leading to misunderstanding or even rejection.
Social Sanctions: The Mechanism for Controlling Deviation
When personality traits are perceived by society as threatening, social sanctions arise. These sanctions can manifest in subtle ways, like silent disapproval or social exclusion, or more openly through legal restrictions or public condemnation.
For example, the SLI (ISTp) type, often independent and practical, may face misunderstanding in collectivist societies. In such environments, SLIs may appear “too reserved” or “insufficiently loyal,” leading to social pressure against their self-reliant behavior, especially when it conflicts with group expectations.
How Personality Typology Helps Understand Norms and Deviations
Personality typology, particularly Socionics, allows for a better understanding of individuals’ inner needs and preferences while predicting which aspects of their behavior might be misunderstood or rejected in different social settings. It enables us to foresee what behaviors may be considered normative in one society but deviant in another.
Thus, Socionics not only helps us understand the hidden motivations and expectations driving people’s actions but also offers tools for identifying the boundaries of social acceptability. It further aids each of us in finding where these boundaries are for us personally and in learning how to adapt our behavior to meet societal expectations while preserving our individuality.