Normality – a seemingly harmless concept that is often used in everyday life. But what does it actually mean to be normal? Who decides what is normal and what happens to those who are considered 'not normal'? In our society, the term “normal” has acquired a disturbing dynamic due to its recent use by various politicians in positions of power.
What is normal"? Is it Frida from next door who regularly goes for walks in the Prater? Or is Robert normal since he gets up and goes to work every day? Am I normal who has my toenails painted because it makes them look nicer? Is Verena normal, who was born with trisomy 21 and works every day in the Lebenshilfe workshops? What is normal? And what happens to people who don't fall into this grid?
Be careful, dear friends of this column, this term can quickly change and can also be used to exclude or even criminalize people who do not meet the prevailing standard. And that has far-reaching consequences.
What does “normal” mean?
Let's look at the word neutrally. The term “normal” is flexible and subjective. Its definition varies from culture to culture, from society to society, from individual to individual. Essentially, “normal” often simply means what conforms to the majority or what is socially acceptable. But this definition raises a question: who determines what constitutes the majority or what is socially acceptable?
The power to define “normal.”
The power to define 'normal' often lies with those who dominate society's norms and values. These can be governments, religious institutions, media or influential people. They form the framework of what is considered acceptable and therefore 'normal'.
By loading the tweet, you accept Twitter's privacy policy.
Learn more
This may all sound all well and good at first – extremists are not normal. Of course, we all agree that applicable laws must be adhered to. It is too easy to take the image of “extremism” and use it to define normality. Groups can quickly be framed in this context and should be criminalized simply because they disagree with their own position. I don't want to comment on this any further, but I think it's problematic. However, I think that when assessing extremism in relation to laws, it should not be about “normal”, but rather about avoiding violence, preserving freedom and also preserving property and, above all, preserving physical integrity. And that is not “normal”, but must be a social consensus.
Be careful, the term “normal” can be used to criminalize or marginalize those who deviate from the norm. People whose lifestyle, beliefs, behavior or appearance deviate from the accepted 'normal' can be excluded, discriminated against or even attacked. This creates a society that values uniformity over diversity and suppresses individual freedom.
The effects on supposedly “non-normal” individuals
For those who are considered 'non-normal', life can be difficult. You may feel isolated, scared and misunderstood. They may be excluded from education, employment opportunities or social benefits. And in extreme cases, they can even become targets of violence and hate crimes.
We don't have to look far, just a look at Hungary is enough! Hungary tried in April to establish a law “to protect the Hungarian way of life”. It was about the “constitutional role of marriage and family”. This law was met with strong international criticism and ultimately did not come about . Nevertheless, it shows that if “father, mother, child” are defined as normal, “mother, mother, child” or even faster “father, father, child” are considered non-normal. Likewise, “mother, child” or “father, child” can then quickly be ostracized. Bad!
Because there is a dark danger lurking here: When society brands people as 'not normal', this can lead to individuals or groups seeing it as their right or even their duty to take action against these people. This can lead to bullying, discrimination and even physical violence. If a state also begins to criminalize certain ways of life, these ways of life quickly become “criminal” or even “extreme”.
The role of democracy
A real democracy protects its minorities. In my opinion, it does not define what is “normal”, but rather recognizes that all people, regardless of their “normality”, are equal and valuable. It promotes diversity and inclusion and campaigns against exclusion and discrimination.
In a truly and vigorously democratic society, not just a single form of “normality” is recognized and valued, but a multitude of ways of life, opinions, beliefs and identities. Democracy thrives on the recognition of this diversity and the equality of all citizens. It protects its minorities and ensures that their voices are heard and their rights are protected.
The role of democracy is also to counteract the danger that arises when “normality” is used as an instrument of power. It must provide a counterweight to the exclusion and discrimination that can result from a narrow and one-sided definition of 'normality'.
“Furthermore, a democracy should actively work to enact laws and regulations that prohibit discrimination and ensure equal treatment of all citizens. It must also create mechanisms that enable people to report and take action against discrimination and injustice.
“Normality” should not dictate laws or vice versa. In my opinion, as already stated, laws should regulate life within a community and, I repeat clearly, serve to prevent violence, protect freedom and also protect property and, above all, protect physical integrity.
In my opinion, we must therefore quickly free ourselves from “toxic normality” and recognize that there is no universal “normality”. At least I don’t like to allow myself to define what “normal” is. It's not about banning the term (I don't like bans in general), but rather dealing with it very sensitively. Otherwise we will suddenly end up with a lot of groups that see each other as “normal” and fight each other. Or even worse: groups without a lobby that are criminalized and fought against.
This is a column!
A column is a regular publication in which an author presents his or her views and opinions on a particular topic, event or matter.
Columns can address topics from politics, culture, society or any other area of public life. What is essential for a column is its character as an opinion piece. Unlike our fact checks , where objectivity and neutrality are the focus, columns are characterized by the subjective view of the author. They do not affect the results of other publications on Mimikama. They serve as a platform to express personal viewpoints, evaluations and interpretations. They can stimulate opinion formation and discussion and show readers new perspectives.
Notes:
1) This content reflects the current state of affairs at the time of publication. The reproduction of individual images, screenshots, embeds or video sequences serves to discuss the topic. 2) Individual contributions were created through the use of machine assistance and were carefully checked by the Mimikama editorial team before publication. ( Reason )