The extreme state of "normal"

Defining ‘normal’ is a complex and controversial topic and one which people working in mental health are frequently called on to comment on and notarise. Normality can be a transient and unique state influenced by multiple... [ view full abstract ]

Defining ‘normal’ is a complex and controversial topic and one which people working in mental health are frequently called on to comment on and notarise. Normality can be a transient and unique state influenced by multiple factors and life events. When a person is being assessed   through the lens of a ‘mental illness’ paradigm it can distort the  unspoken rules, entrenched behaviours and beliefs established over a  lifetime required to survive abuse, ridicule, self -loathing and  neglect. Service - users have often been exposed to an unconventional and invalidating environments therefore what may be classified as ordinary will differ greatly to someone who has experienced a more conventional upbringing. It is unreasonable to conclude that people would respond to extraordinary events in ordinary ways.  We have with some arrogance in mental health ordained ourselves as the connoisseurs  of what is normal and arbiter of  ‘appropriate responses’ therefore our patented view  of normal becomes a clinically constructed guideline, driven by autocratic and confusing outcomes  for Service -users. This paper will look at how we can marginalise people with a biased interpretation of normality steeped in over generalised criteria frequently excluding cultural and spiritual practices and perceived unorthodox beliefs. Exploring what is ordinary for people and what ‘looks extraordinary on an ordinary day’ is part of a process which engages service users and practitioners in a robust and mutually satisfying therapeutic relationship.