This week, I attended a Rose Cafe lead by GRF Magdala, where she discussed her PhD study of normal vs. pathological. Basically, she is proposing the idea that instead of comparing people to a normal standard, we should compare them to themselves. For example, in the medical field, a person with a cold will be compared to themselves without a cold to find treatment. However, a person born with a limp would not be seen as one who needs treatment to fix the limp, but rather as one with a limp. While this idea is interesting to think about, I do not think it is entirely necessary and, to some extent, already exists.
The standard of being normal is argued to remove individuality. I would argue the opposite. The normal standard is simply an aggregation of an average of the population for personality traits and an ideal scenario for standard of living. For life expectancy, medical procedures, and such, normal is what people strive for in order to live a longer, healthier life. This purpose of the normal is very good, as people should strive to live longer and the normal serves to be a benchmark for how people should live. If we compare an overweight person to themselves, it can increase long term risk of disease and shorten their life span. For the personality function of the normal, this actually highlights what people do differently, as if everyone was 100% different, finding common ground would be more difficult and everyone’s little quirks and alternative interests would not be as interesting to talk about. I think the major criticism of the normal is that it drives people to the middle, but from my experience, it actually makes the individuality of people more pronounced.
I also attended this cafe and I find your examination of “the normal” very interesting. I left the discussion feeling very conflicted, but I am not sure that I came to the same conclusion as you. I agree with the usefulness of the normal as a way to measure people’s health and increase their longevity. However, I am not sure I would agree with your claim that the normal increases the prominence of people’s individuality, although I suppose that having a standard to compare to would help people define themselves as separate from the normal.
If I understand your praise of the “normal” correctly, you’re arguing that it’s a useful tool for developing the self. This sounds a lot like Hegel’s conception of the self, wherein we only understand and fixate on the self because we can differentiate it from an “other” (if we differ from the “normal”, we could substitute it in for “other”). I really, really like that idea a lot. I think I’m going to jump from it with my own discussion post.
I agree that the concept of “the normal” is not necessarily a bad thing, however I believe that in many cases–including in medicine–it is taken too far. I agree with the notion that was brought up at the cafe that “normal” is not necessarily equivalent to “healthy.” While in many cases it may be, we should still be open to the possibility that for any particular individual, the most healthiest position may not be the normal one.
I didn’t attend this particular event, but I do remember having similar feelings when I attended the Table Talk about mental illness. Sure, perhaps we as a society can get a little too fixated on having everyone be the same and therefore easier to manage. However, I think it’s perfectly all right for someone to seek out to change themselves to be more “normal” so that their lives are a little easier. Using your example of a person born with a limp, which could cause them to have a lot of pain, it’s perfectly okay for that person to seek out solutions to fix their limb or at least alleviate the pain.