Thank you, Carmen Plaza, for such a perplexing question.
Nature is in some ways chaotic, and we therefore all seek, as human beings, to fit into a social structure (cities, universities, jobs, etc.) which precedes our own existence and yet changes with it. We do this for evolutionary reasons, and it influences heavily what we experience as normality. Trite though this may sound, in a world where many forces, physical and human, operate simultaneously, structure is essential for energy to be channelled properly, and it is precisely when a society is badly structured that there tends to be the most grievances. Indeed, on a broad scale, the function of a dam or irrigation system is not too dissimilar from the supposed role of an education or health system: to provide structure so that energy can become power over oneself and one’s situation. Nevertheless, structures can be suboptimal and put people in positions where it is more difficult for them to use their energy efficiently. This can affect what we consider to be ‘normal’. Some good examples are the tools of communication we use today.
These tools weren’t part of our “normality” twenty years ago, but they have now changed how we interact. To understand certain aspects of these changes, one can look at the way apps, websites, online stores, social networks, etc. are developed. These technologies are shaped using scientific knowledge about how our brains/bodies work (see comments for some relevant material). In fact, between advertisers, website designers and shareholders, a lot is done to understand what we react to, how we react to it, how our experiences affect our hormones/vitamin levels and vice versa. As a result, these technologies are designed in full knowledge of the fact that thoughts are physiological, and that words are not our primary mode of communication. To put it differently, developers know that we are visual creatures wired to constantly compare and assert ourselves (e.g. carving out a place for ourselves in a hierarchy like the job market), and that we are evolutionarily wired to always be on the lookout for ways to improve our situations. They are aware of this because they know that to make money in a society where normality fluctuates, they have to have as many customers as possible, and therefore need to know people in general, in a way that individuals might not know themselves. In other words, their goal as developers and businesspeople is to make sure what is built will be effective at capturing our attention, which in turn affects where we direct our energy. If one can create a certain structure or tool capable of making people dedicate their brain time to it, one can generate revenue; and the more popular the tool, the more it can change normality.
We tend to say the market decides whether something is cool, that is, whether something becomes the new normal; but that does not preclude the fact that sometimes, as Pontus Alv, the founder of Polar Skate Co., put it, “the market does not know what it wants until you give it to them”. That is just how change works sometimes; it isn’t bad in itself. Nevertheless, media tools are designed to catch our attention by making us react – as opposed to act – since thousands of years of evolution dictate that it is not necessarily our choice whether we react or not. So, it would not be extreme to say that a big factor in shaping not just normality but also our tastes is the fact that our innermost human nature is constantly being studied by forces paying attention to some of the most insightful scientific discoveries. In other words, that which is considered ‘normal’ becomes ‘normal’ because our evolutionary needs to discover and to not feel excluded contribute to the ‘becoming-normal’ of a practice. While this doesn’t mean that everything is evil, it also doesn’t mean that one should be naïve enough to think that certain people or groups aren’t capable of explaining away consequences for the sake of their own interests. What seems to be most important is that there are ways in which the definition of ‘normality’ is beyond our control.
What do you think? What is normal? Let us know in the comments.
And, as always, if you have a question for the Armchair Philosophers, don’t hesitate to get in touch. You could send us a message or fill in this form.
Image: Quiet Normality, by Jozlyn Wright (credit)
I did a BSc in International Politics and then an MA in Continental Philosophy. My main influence is Nietzsche, who mentions that in order to properly understand not only humanity, but also the world we live in, we have to engage in the “naturalisation of humanity” and the “de-deification of nature.” Understanding this is crucial if we want to find better and more realistic ways of living alongside one another.