A reversed view on normality

Have you ever been in a situation where you, maybe with a feeling of amazement and frus-tration, discovered that you did not seem to meet the product description of what a human being is and should be? Maybe you have even tried to improve yourself so you could live up to that norm and so become a normal human being.

I do apologize for getting so personal. But my own strong opinion is that there is something weird with all these exact descriptions which from an anatomic, physiologic, psychologic, religious, magic, or whatever perspective, define and determine what a human beeing is and how she should function. There is something wrong with this. Not that I think that all these deep thoughts and carefully worked out specifications of human normality should be seen as irresponsible or can’t be understood. On the contrary. Most of them are quite transparent and clear and have a logic context. But the sad thing is that you very rarely meet a specimen of homo sapiens whose functions seem to correspond with these, often very exact, product specifications of man. This is quite unsatisfactory, to put it mildly.

Could it then perhaps be that the average of many different descriptions of living specimens of the same kind creates a statistically defined virtual norm for an individual of the examined species? But is there in reality such a thing as a statistically described ”normal” individual? In that happy period in my life when I was trusted with presribing arch supports to patients with weak and painful feet I learned that those simple arch supports that were made to fit everyone really did not fit anyone. The statistically defined normal foot was not so very common, mildly speaking.

Of course the same conclusions could be drawn when it comes to the similitude between a specific human being and a statistical description of the ”normal” human individual. Still, I would like to be able to maintain the hope that I one day will meet someone who, proud and happy, wears an official certificate of being NORMAL on her forehead. An individual who physically, mentally and socially exactly meets scientific descriptions. But then it would of course be important to meet her in the exact right moment when everyone of her dynamic and moving life-systems are in a position that complies with the supposed norm. That would be rather difficult! With arch supports this is somewhat easier, they do not change form and function so very fast. But a human being with all her dynamic, fast moving and changing systems of body, mind and behavior – including her feet?

By now my last hope of meeting a person who could be a model of normality for me has vanished. A kind of human mould with which I could give myself a form. Something of myself would of course have to be cut off – there will always be some dough left when you make a cake. But perhaps it would be worth it in exchange for becoming normal? On the other hand, if I could become such an exact and living human norm, would I be whole if parts of me had to be cut off?

Now, if I belonged to those people who really believe that a reliable and exact descriptive norm of the human individual is possible I would definitely reject that last question. My personal norm would strictly mirror the defined specifications. Nothing else. There would be no question of the product’s own view on this. What the specified product feels and thinks does not correspond with those hard data on which a sustainable scientific product specification must rest. An assessment and classification of the quality of the product and its usefulness would then not be possible. And this would make it very difficult, for example, to use economic and social resources in a proper way to help as many specimens as possible towards the norm. This said, and having some decades of experiencing real life behind me, a small boy rises in me and cries out: I don’t want to be normal, I want to be myself!

Exactly, I want to be myself. Now the opposing view becomes obvious. There is a difference between looking at humans and to be human. It does not matter how detailed and well-meaning a description of the human being is. It can never be the same as being human. To live means to see and experience life from inside out. My perception of myself, and that which seems to be outside me, is my only possible reality. I cannot get outside myself for an objective view. And this is probably as close to Reality itself as I can get while living in a human body. Some mystics say otherwise but what they may have seen can not be directly experienced by others.

A scientific description of human functions can only register the outside of a human beeing. The mind with its feelings, thoughts, reactions and ideas is personal and can’t be directly observed and measured from the outside, neither by machines nor by others. But these mental attributes make it possible to come to some understanding of ourselves as individuals and of the world around us, react to it and act in it. This difference between what we really are and all those descripitive norms, philosophycally or statistically generated, is necessary to understand if we want to help ourselves, or others, to greater maturity, wholeness and harmony. The basis for such work must then be the individual’s ”inside-out” experience. But as we humans also need, and depend on, reason and logical understanding of ourselves and the world around us, our personal view must also be complemented with trustworthy ”outside-in” knowledge.

Only if we grow to greater awareness and insight will we be able to affect and gradually change our feelings, thoughts and actions towards a more mature, more human and less animal level. But in doing so it is important never to forget that no one can rise himself to a higher level of human function only by means of a general product specifikation of human normality. Neither is such a growth possible by sticking only to the own perception of self  and world. This will result in more disharmony and a diminished life experience which in turn can have a negative effect on our life functions. When it comes to maturing and better understanding of ourselves, and others, both views are necessary. The ”outside-in” perspective is important but the ”inside-out”  perspective is crucial.