No I am not sitting in a luxurious resort facing a beautiful sunset on a remote island, instead I am sitting here reflecting over a victory in yugioh (yes I still play it) and a near victory in poker (I don't gamble with money so it's all good). But I am sidetracking. What I am thinking about right now is what is a normal person and how do we define and does it truly exist.
The answer in my opinion is not as clear cut as yes or no or there is and there isn't. Instead what I propose is a series of ideas which offer suggestion of an absence of normality in a social sense but a dominant desire for this (let's call it a) social norm. I do admit however that elements of normality do in truth exist.
So let us start at the beginning. Hmm this sounds like a book....perhaps I should do that.
No I am going to be serious for a bit. Normality or rather the social norm doesn't exist or is rather misconstruded as to what it really is. Throughout life you hear such sentences as 'that's not normal' or 'a normal person would do this'. This immediately makes me and maybe even you wonder what actually is normal? Could you give me a definition? Perhaps they could answer that with something along the lines of 'normal is acting like this...' and then go on to talk about several 'normal' behaviourisms or they may even talk about people. However this doesn't prove the existence or meaning behind a sense of normality, rather instead it offers us a feeling of confusion and wonder at what is it to be truly normal.
My view on normality is that it is based on an individuals opinion. What is meant by this is that every person has there own view on the normal which at most is similar to another persons opinion but never the same; so at most it is similar. So if normality is based on an individuals perception then how can it exist. Normality argues that we are the same as someone else or a certain persona but if these definitions of normality are in fact opinions then how can the normal exist.
Secondly we as humans are complicated. How we act, what we do and say is reflective to an extent of how we feel but this is not always the case. In some points in our life how we act reflects how we feel and what we think and believe but other points convey a divide in how we act and what we feel. So if this is true then it establishes the idea that we are all individuals are similar but never the same, even identical twins aren't the same (I've taught twins how to swim so I can see this). This individuality therefore removes any sense of normality which argues that we are the same or conform to a set behaviour pattern.
Now i have been rambling on going against any sense of normality but in truth I believe that our similarities can be drawn from our observance and actions towards moral, social and other guidelines and rules within our world.
There is however my counter-argument which delves a little further. This is that if normality is based say on a fact it can exist i.e. if a business say they normally produce £300,000 per 6 months and have based this on the past 10 years then it can be seen as a normal profit per 6 months. Another example could be that a GP could say the following; for this type of injury we normally prescribe x amount of medicine. Now because this is based on research and evidence then it can be seen as normal.
This is my opinion which other people have agreed and disagreed with but believe what you want.
L. Bailey
