Normalcy
Posted on March 13, 2017 by Blake Beber
edited by Amanda Mannis
Definition of Normalcy:
Norms are informal rules that guide social interactions and “constitute a critical component in the makeup of human cultures and therefore play a highly significant role in determining what it means to be human” (Dandaneau, 2007, p.1). The definition of normalcy, therefore, is the societal construct of the average human in which a majority of the population devotes itself to adhere to, and where deviances and extremes are constructed against the average as “other.” In this context, normalcy is discussed as the establishment in society of a principle of normalcy in which a majority is devoted to adhering to, and where deviants and extremes from the “norm” are seen as undesirable. Where medical statistics start to emerge as early as the 1820s, there comes the construction of the “abstract human” as the “average of all human attributes in a given country” (Davis 1997, 26). This average is what is constructed as the norm in the article, a norm which implies abnormalities.
Historical Context:
In his article “Constructing Normalcy,” Davis suggests a historical progression of a normal body coming from the construction of a very different “ideal” body stemming from preindustrial times. In these societies, the ideal or “divine” body is unobtainable from humans because it stems from the gods (Davis 1997, 25). Humans are simply models of the ideal; therefore, they can never be the ideal body themselves, so deviance from the ideal was accepted (Davis 1997, 25). Davis argues that in a society where the ideal is accepted to be unobtainable, and everybody recognizes they are below the ideal, there is no existing pressure to conform to an ideal (Davis 1997, 25). The opposite of ideal in this society becomes the grotesque, but Davis again mentions that grotesqueness was embodied by everybody, so it was inclusive, and more representative of the norm than the ideal body was (Davis 1997, 25). Davis details the emergence of statistics during the industrialization as a primary mechanism for establishing a normalcy that is ideal rather than grotesque, a major problem he sees in the society today that values normalcy as being ideal rather than normalcy as being grotesque. This, Davis argues, is the essence of the societal problem of labeling the disabled as not conforming to the norm, and are excluded (Davis 1997, 26). Davis notes that many early statisticians were eugenicists, where a link between “the statistical measure of humans” and the improvement of “humans so that deviations from the norm diminish” structured the foundation for evaluating normalcy and excluding (or rejecting) deviations from it as the key to consistent progress (Davis 1997, 30). Eugenics and this idea of normalcy, Davis argues, permeates American European culture today into manipulating people to believe that rather than strive for deviation and uniqueness, normalcy is desirable and only some deviations are seen positively, whereas other deviations are regarded as inhuman (Davis 1997, 35). The idea of the norm stems from the bourgeoisie and there idea that the normal majority is desirable and rational, stressing steady human progress (less deviations from the norm), industrialization, and consolidation of the power of the “normal” majority (Davis 1997, 49). The idea of normality therefore comes from the concept of an ideal body; however, society today has flipped being ideal from unobtainable to not only obtainable, but specifically desirable and exclusive to the abnormal.
Relevant Examples of Normalcy Debate:
A very easy and relevant example to discuss in this context is the framing of the disabled population in America as other, and as a result, excluded. Despite generally sympathy for this group, the desire and underlying necessity to adhere to a norm still causes judgment as well as inability to accept those who are deviant from the norm (disabled in this example). In a BBC article by Sean Coughlan published in 2010, he argues that despite “support for the rights of disabled people to be a part of mainstream society,” this is not matched by “everyday experience” which keeps the idea of exclusion of the disabled at the front of social and work lives (Coughlan 2010). An interview performed by Coughlan illustrates his point clearly in which the woman responds to a question regarding social exclusion of the disabled suggesting that it is due to an “‘embarrassment factor’” (Coughlan 2010). She elaborates that the lack of familiarity with the disabled (due to a lack of familiarity and inclusion of those outside the norm) can cause exclusion (Coughlan 2010). Exclusion and unfamiliarity with disabled people is a huge problem in Britain, which Coughlan refers to in his article, but also the United States. The idea of normalcy continues to plague these societies in a way that frames deviance from normality as scary and worthy of exclusion, as is evident in the consistent and unimproved exclusion of the disabled population.
Chronic Illness and Normalcy
People with chronic illnesses live a life that is full of incongruities—they can act normally but never be normal. In the case of the chronically ill, abnormality becomes an identity. Thorne (1993), investigates how for the chronically ill the normal is “intertwined with images of visible and invisible departures from the norm” (Thorne, 1993,57). The side effects of being chronic ill alters what normal is whether it be visible or invisible. For example, while a normal person might base healthy off of numbers like blood pressure readings, a chronically ill person whose numbers would always vary from the normal blood pressure ranges might have to base it on the status of how they feel from day to day. Therefore, chronically ill person can pass for normal yet internally might be suffering for abnormal conditions. This can causes the chronically ill’s experience to be delegitimized.
Contributors and Opinions on Normalcy (Controversy/Perspectives):
The opinions on normalcy stem from trying to understand normalcy as a societal construct which, as a result, makes disability as well a societal construct. Disability is not simply a physical problem, but rather it is filtered through our conception of normality to formulate itself into a “problem” for those not experiencing it. Tanya Titchkosky suggests that “disability as a problem is presented to people through interaction” (Titchkosky 2000, 198). She suggests that disability is represented as a problem because of a body deviance (or defect) that is reflected as a social “problem” rather than just a “difference” because normality is precious (Titchkosky 200, 198). She argues that this “involuntary deviance” is “stigmatized” against a “master status,” which in society today is the normal status of people (or of the majority). Titchkovsky’s argument is very reflective of Davis’ framing of the idea of normalcy as it applies to disability as a deviance from normality. The controversy with normality stems from the exclusion that it implies, and how the idea of normality can be exclusive at its core, indicating that the disabled will be excluded unless the idea of normality itself is challenged or disabled people can integrate themselves into that norm. However, only one of those is truly possible, so the problem to evaluate is how to qualify normalcy in today’s society to become an inclusive idea like it was in the historic past with the divine and grotesque bodies (as opposed to the normal and deviant or disabled bodies).
Relating to Politics of Health:
This concept of normalcy relates to the concept of sympathy and exclusion in the course used to apply to undocumented immigrants and their fight for sympathy and inclusion in healthcare. In this context, however, sympathy and exclusion stems from the disabled population’s fight for inclusion stemming from a sense of sympathy in society. Unfortunately, sympathy (as discussed earlier in the Coughlan article) is where support for the disabled stops in a sense as far as the “normal population” is concerned. Government funding for the population may be further cut in Britain and this suggests that disabled people, because they are seen as extreme deviants and others, are not to receive the care they truly need to be their best-functioning selves. This leaves the disabled population in the balance of helplessness and exclusion, much like the undocumented immigrant population. As deviations from the norm, these people struggle for integration and acceptance, and it may even be reflected in the governmental policy and funding towards them.
Citations:
Coughlan, Sean. “Disabled are socially excluded says Scope survey.” BBCNews. September 1, 2010
Dandaneau, Steven P. “Norms.” Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Ritzer, George (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 2007. Blackwell Reference Online. 03 April 2017 <http://www.blackwellreference.com.proxy.library.vanderbilt.edu/subscriber/tocnode.html?id=g9781405124331_yr2013_chunk_g978140512433120_ss1-30>
Davis, Lennard . “Constructing Disabiility.” In Enforcing Disability: Disability, Deafness, and the Body, (1995) 23-49.
TitchKosky, Tanya. “Disability Studies: The Old and the New.” The Canadian Journal of Sociology 25, 2 (2000): 197-224
Thorne, Sally E. 1993. Negotiating health care: the social context of chronic illness. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications.
« Back to Glossary Index