WHO IS NORMAL?

Foreword:
After spending most of the day conversing with the personified NEPA; striking deals and talking to myself. I considered the mad people roaming the streets and wondered if to them we were 'the insane'.
These musings brought to mind one of my favorite lectures from my 1st teacher. 
It’s a bit lengthy (approximately 1800 words) so if you are not one with the zeal for knowledge, kindly tune out, turn off and go play with your dollies. 

Congratulations! You are among the elite. Make an effort to read to the end. It promises to be worth the effort so sit back, relax and be educated…


Question 1: Who are you? Are you a normal person?
Question 2:**
Question 3: **

This brief lecture will share some ideas with us all. We shall in Part I look at the concepts of Restiveness and Youth restiveness, then we shall examine the word “normal” and discuss the problems associated with trying to establish who a normal person is and its implications for education. 
In Part II we shall look at “why children fail?” and conclude.

PART I

WHAT IS NORMAL?

The question what is normal is not so easily answered as you might think. The social sciences and psychiatry have never come up with a definition of “normal” which is satisfactory to everyone and at the same time allows clear – cut specification of normal behaviors. Indeed, we know much more about abnormal behavior, even if sometimes we have a difficult task in trying to separate the one from the other.
The word “normal” is derived from the Latin word “normalis” which means “made according to rule”. Hence, the English word “norm”… a rule or guideline. At least four definitions of normality have been proposed at various times by various people. Often, two or more of these definitions are combined in an informal way, thus compounding the confusion over the meaning of the term “normal”. The four definitions of normality are listed below.

1. Normality as health.
2. Normality as the ideal.
3. Normality as average.
4. Normality as ethnic or natural.
Let us take a brief look at each of these in turn

1. Normality as Health
One of the most popular models of normality is derived from the field of medicine. From this model comes such terms as “mental health” as its converse, “mental illness”.
Traditionally, this model has defined mental health (normality) as the absence of disease or illness. This is a negative definition. i.e. one is healthy if one is not sick. The 19th and early 20th century medicine saw health as a qualitatively different state from illness. The healthy body was qualitatively different form the diseased body. The analogy was carried over to “disease of the mind”, so that the mentally ill persons were seen as qualitatively different from mentally healthy persons. Advances in medical science in the 21st century have led to a more sophisticated view of health and disease, such that health is viewed as a relative rather than an absolute state. In other words, one is healthy if one is reasonably free of undue pain, discomfort of disability. This newer conception has been transferred to the field of mental health, thus increasing sophistication but decreasing clarity.

2. Normality as the ideal
The conception of the normal person as the ideal person was first promulgated by the psychologists, although now it is a notion held by sizeable proportion of social scientists and psychiatrists like Carl Rogers, Erich Fromm to name a few.
In this view, the normal person is seen as the optimally functioning individual. The normal person is one who is maximizing all the potentialities within himself (a notion Carl Rogers calls “self actualization”.
The conception of the normal person as the ideal person is rarely held alone. Rather, it is often combined with one of the other models of normality.

3. Normality as average
In this view, the normal person is one whose behavior is similar to that of the majority of his fellows. Strictly speaking, a deviation in either direction from the average or majority is defined as abnormal. In practice however, some kinds of “deviation” or “abnormality” are highly desirable. For example, the majority of people have an I. Q hovering around 100, a deviation of 40 points from this average should strictly speaking, be seen as abnormal. However, it is clear that most people do not view an I. Q of 140 in the same way they view an I. Q of say 60.
Thus, this model is rarely held in its purest form, but rather is contaminated by criteria outside of it, for example, social desirability even so, it is probably one of the most widely(if unconsciously) held models of normality.

4. Normality as ethnic or natural
In psychology and psychiatry this is a relatively recent conception; however, it has been held in one form or another since the beginning of recorded history, in this view the normal person is the individual who does the right thing or lives in accordance with human nature. One modern day proponent of this view is Herbert Mowrer, a prominent psychologist, whose point of view is that the normal person conforms to the current social morality (as internalized by his conscience) or he shows open nonconformity with social mores and is prepared to accept the consequences of his nonconformity.
A psychiatrist who holds a similar view is C. Jung who believes the abnormal person is one who has “problems in living”. The normal person on the other hand, knows the rules of the game of life and plays accordingly. He is aware of what it takes to lead the good life and is capable of following up this knowledge with action.

SOME DIFFICULTIES WITH THE MODELS OF NORMALITY

Even in the sketch presentation outline above, it should be clear that these models are not carefully thought out and represent only the barest prototypes of a good theory. Each model taken alone appears to be inadequate to account for the phenomena it attempts to explain. Thus, most people implicitly combine two or more of the models without clearly understanding what they are doing. It becomes extremely important then, for persons engaged in conversations where the word “normal” appears in reference to human beings, that the meaning of the term be specified as clearly as possible by all of the parties concerned. Chances are very good each of them is using the word “normal” in a different fashion from the others.
One of the primary reasons there is so much difficulty in this area is that there have been a few attempts to specify the observable behaviors which denote normality or its lack. For example, what does a “mentally healthy individual” do or not do, that is different form a “mentally ill” person? What types of behaviors does a “self – actualizing” person manifest?
The ambiguities inherent in all the models lead to numerous problems in the practical order, especially in the classroom. The ambiguities can be seen in the following illustrations:

Case I: Adeolu, a primary four pupil enjoys being alone, he is never aware of the feelings of the other children in the class. He has no friends; he is fond of spinning objects while outdoors and watching television silently indoors. Although very poor in speech behavior and communication, he is very good in music and mathematics. Is Adeolu a “normal” child?

Case II: Jambo a primary four pupil is always active and restless in the classroom. He could never be seated to listen; he always disturbs other children and made too much noise. In the class, he is the most difficult to control. Jambo’s concentration is low as his attention span is very short. As a result, his academic performance is poor. Is Jambo a “normal” child?

Case III: Mrs. Okoro, the primary six teacher scheduled a Mock First School Leaving Certificate examination for Friday morning, shortly after the examination was over, Ngozi, one of her bright pupils who was absent from the examination presents herself with the following explanation; she told her teacher Mrs. Okoro that she did not come for the examination because she becomes too anxious and panics stricken when taking examinations. She lamented that on the night before (Thursday), while revising her notes, she had several bouts of vomiting and dysentery. On her way to the examination hall, she broke into a cold sweat and her hands were trembling so much so that she was forced to go hide herself in the ladies. Kneeling before Mrs. Okoro, Ngozi is all in tears because she sees her aspiration to earn a First School Leaving Certificate seriously jeopardized by her fear of examinations. She begs Mrs. Okoro for “any help”. Is Ngozi a “normal” child?

Think about the above three cases for a bit.

Just who is normal anyway?


IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION

As can be seen from the above three cases, the teacher is constantly faced with the problem of defining for herself who is the “normal” child.
Is the fear of examination alone sufficient for the teacher to brand Ngozi, in Case III, a” non – normal” child? While the example of Adeolu (Case I) is a clear – cut case of autism, how many teachers are familiar with the typical symptoms of autistic behavior in children? In the case of Jambo, (Case II), many teachers are often tempted to dismiss Jambo as being “lazy” and “mischievous”. Is this a true characterization of this type of behavior?
Until there is a more acceptable definition of “normal”, the classroom teacher needs to be very conversant with disorders of childhood and adolescence before she can categorize a child as “normal” or “non – normal”. In the second part of this work, we shall argue that many children fail because the teachers fail to understand and properly address many behavioral abnormalities that impede and frustrate the “development” of the young, especially during the early stage of life...




Culled from YOUTH RESTIVENESS AND THE PROBLEM OF WHO IS NORMAL: IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION a lecture given by Prof J. D. Okoh. February, 2012

Prof. Joseph Donatus Okoh is a professor of Education and Fellow of Philosophy of Education Association of Nigeria (PEAN). His qualifications include:  

B. A., Philosophy of Religious Studies (Rome), B.SC., Psychology ( De- Pere, USA), M.A., Guidance and Counselling ( Rome). His M.Ed and Ph.D were obtained in Philosophy of Education at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.