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.