Wild and zany - whose adjective is it anyway?

In these days of ubiquitous social media, online dating and 'tell us how good you are' job interviews, we frequently need to describe ourselves.

To do this, we use adjectives like friendly, fun, down-to-earth, positive, thoughtful, creative, caring, trustworthy, dedicated, motivated, effective. You can even find helpful lists online if you need more impressive adjectives for your profile.

When I was young, we were schooled in modesty: to assume effort, character and ability would speak for themselves. Self promotion was frowned upon. So, the contemporary need to self-describe and self-promote has been uncomfortable for me.

But I'm used to it now. I no longer panic in interviews when asked to describe myself in three words, and I follow the job seeker's guideline: 'Don't be too modest'. 

But sometimes the way people talk about themselves, well, it just doesn't feel right to me.

Source: Public Domain

Here are a few examples that feel off beam:

• We're soooo crazy! - group of performers in an interview after a concert
• We're wild; we're out of control; look out world! - group of 30-something football fans
• My parties are always great because I'm so zany! - woman at public function she organised
• We're all really cool; you'll like working here - new work colleague.

When a person says these sorts of things, it's not that I disagree with them. What feels strange and a bit off is that they use these adjectives to describe themselves.

I find myself wondering, is it actually their adjective to use?

I don't think my feelings are just some lingering discomfort about how we 'perform' our identity these days. I think it's something else about those words.

These adjectives* are different from those describing physical attributes, like tall, pale, plump - these are visible attributes that you don't quibble about (too much). They also seem different from adjectives for physiological states, like hungry, tired, anxious, or emotional states, like sad, jealous, delighted - these describe 'internal states' that we all experience at times and we accept someone's assessment about themselves. They also differ from adjectives we used to describe our attributes or skills, like analytical, sporty, musical - these have some observable actions to confirm them. These days, you can even claim to be smart, thoughtful, creative - adjectives with which you say you are better at something than others. These all sound okay to the listener.

But it doesn't sound okay to THIS listener when someone says, 'I'm so... crazy! wild! zany! cool.' (Cool doesn't take an exclamation mark. Of course).

These four adjectives have something in common: they are used to describe behaviour that differs from 'acceptable' and 'normal' social behaviour. They describe thwarting our shared social rules.

We determine exactly what constitutes 'acceptable' social rules for behaviour, actions, interests and status as a group, as a culture (or sub-culture). In our society, saying hello and goodbye, respecting others' belongings, following the road rules, wearing clothes that match, getting married, enjoying a beer, collecting the entire set of small plastic objects from cereal boxes - all 'acceptable' behaviours according to our (Western) social rules. 

We also assume the 'normal' thing to do is adhere to these social rules.

Thus, along with the concept of 'normal' comes the group's assessment of each person's adherence to social rules and norms. We use strong, negative adjectives like abnormal, deviant, sociopathic to describe those who fail to adhere, and we disapprove, incarcerate or shun these people.

We have some positive adjectives too. Zany, wild, crazy and cool are words for those who ignore or thwart normal social rules, but in a way that we value for their individuality and courage. We admire the person who expresses their authentic self despite society's restrictions and social rules.

It hinges on authenticity. 

The authentic person does not consciously perform for anyone else. They do not behave or focus on an interest just to violate social rules or impress other people, but as an expression of themselves. A genuinely zany or wild person doesn't describe themselves with these words. They don't feel the need to make loud public protestations about not being normal.

In contrast, self-aware and reactionary social rule breaking seems anything but authentic or individualistic. People who talk about themselves as crazy, wild, zany, cool are merely performing what then becomes a new 'normal' in their social group - break social rules!

They are consciously reacting against well understood norms as a performance to others. They are constructing an identity of 'rule-breaker', possibly to avoid being perceived as normal, obviously the worst sin. Normal, of course, being code for 'being boring'.

(And while we're talking about 'being boring', it's mandatory to listen to some Pet Shop Boys.)

So that brings me closer to understanding. I'm irked by the deliberate and reactionary social rule breaking they are proclaiming: 'We break the rules, therefore we are zany. We don't care what you think, therefore we are cool. We are irresponsible, therefore we are wild.' 

But social rules don't work that way; they don't get to decide if they are cool or zany. The observer does. As society's proxy, I bring society's norms with me, I observe their rule breaking claims, and I judge if it is positive and genuine.

Much like beauty, judgements of whether someone is zany, wild, crazy or cool lie in the eye of the beholder.

So, recapping: this group of adjectives describes a person who doesn't adhere to some socially determined norms, but in a way we usually think of as positive. These words are used by individuals about themselves to signal they have made a conscious effort to deviate from the norm. It is the deliberate nature of this deviation that irks. This is what doesn't feel right. The rule-breaking is merely reactive. It's performance only, with no substance. They are reacting against our shared social standards and norms, not because they are oppressive (that's another question) but because they are there.

When people claim these things about themselves, they fail to convince me. They are performing within very narrow limits - their 'crazy, zany, wild, cool behaviour' is formulaic. They are merely confirming against the norm. They are demonstrating self-aware and deliberate performance of what they think is valuable in their social group, rather than expressing themselves.

Self-aware performance and presentation of one's identity is common. Remember: 'Don't be too modest.' But authenticity remains a requirement. Another important job interview guideline is 'Don't make things up. You will be found out.'

Source: Public domain

I understand it's not always easy to describe yourself to others. I've learnt how to do it, and now manage my professional, social and online identity(ies). But some adjectives are not mine to use. I can't describe myself as tall or musical because that wouldn't be true. 

Definitely not cool.

Adjectives that describe thwarting social norms, like wild, crazy, zany and cool, only sound okay if that person is authentic. People proclaiming loudly that they are deliberately breaking social rules scream with a lack of authenticity. 

It's not their adjective to use.

* Of course, there are all sorts of adjectives that are not descriptive (at least 6 other types), but one thing at a time!


Images, used under Creative Commons licences

• Crazy scrabble: http://www.photos-public-domain.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/crazy.jpg [Public domain]
• Pet Shop Boys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcX3XLQkNTc [Youtube licencing]
• Not cool: http://egmr.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/not-cool.jpg [Public domain]