What Is Normal?

Today more than ever we hear about the need to return to “normal” or the even more choice phrase “new normal”. The philosophically minded when presented with such statements must ask: what is normal? What was normality?

To avoid banal generalities I am going to try and stick to what I know which is the situation in the UK. Although I may at times refer to “The West” for stylistic reasons what I am really talking about is the UK.

The relationship of the citizen to the government has taken on more and more of the characteristics of the master-slave relationship set forth by Hegel. The master and the slave both depend on each other for mutual recognition of the other’s self consciousness. The government finds meaning in imposing it’s will on the citizens, the citizens find significance through following the directives of the government. This dynamic has always been present in British society but has reached unprecedented levels currently. As far as I am aware it is now a item of law whether one is allowed to meet another person outside of one’s household. A undeniable and important component of any return to normality will be a retreat of government from people’s private life. Whilst there must be pressure on them to do this as soon as possible, I fear that there is nothing more permanent than the temporary. That as the state spends more and more money that it is not recuperating via taxation it may have to seek more rapacious means of maintaining it’s existence. Also, there is the practical point that long after the virus has been vanquished the fear surrounding it and the possibility of a new variant or some other disease taking hold can be used as a political carte blanche to enforce whatever measures it wants. To be clear, I am not passing judgement on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such fears. What I am commenting on is how they will likely be used by unscrupulous leadership. If the past is any indicator of future behavior it seems that people will broadly speaking comply with whatever deprivations are imposed on them. On this front, I see no return to normality any time soon.

Speaking about the cultural sphere in The West in the broadest sense it appears that all discourse outside of a few isolated channels and dissenting voices is dominated by left-wing or progressive thinking. As these ideas gain more and more dominance and are often spread in very intolerant and unquestioning way. An example, of this are the recent move of all major brands to embrace some idea of social justice or racial equality for obviously cynical reasons. Very little real progress (by the standards of those who hold progressive beliefs) will be achieved. When people who diverge to whatever extent from these beliefs feel threatened they may be sparked in a counter reaction which creates further polarization. Alternatively, people will simply express publicly all the right opinions, whilst in private they sharpen their knives. This duplicity will mean that the appearance of an increasingly “progressive” society will continue a pace, whist underneath the surface little or substance will change. To be clear, I am not against a more equal or fairer society in principle. What I object to are the coercive means that are deployed to achieve it that are ultimately counter productive.

Despite the spate of censorship by internet platforms it is still the case that you are far more free to think what you want in the relatively anarchic internet than you will ever be in “real” world. I should qualify this statement by saying that certain views although controversial are too obscure to attract the sort of critical mass of attention that is required for something to be frowned upon in the first place. An example of this being those who think that both the mainstream left and right in this country are intellectually bankrupt. Such an opinion is so far out of the norm and has so few adherents that it can be safely ignored by the powers that be. Especially, when this distention is not combined with an “extremist” ideology, I use scare quotes because every original idea that has ever been proposed was at some point labelled as “extreme” by those with vested interest against change. The printing press was not a welcome development in the eyes of many in Europe that the censorship mechanism that was the original copyright laws were put in place in England to control it. The thought that women deserved to treated the same as men was also a once a radical idea.

On the fringe of what is acceptable today you may see the orthodoxy of tomorrow. I remember laughing at tourists from Asia because they were wearing face masks. How ridiculous they looked, I laughed at their obviously unfounded paranoia. Now the rest of the world has adopted what was previously viewed by as lunacy. I do not mean this in a snobbish way but if you look at the history of ideas you see again and again an intransigent and ideologically committed minority leading the passive majority. We see this the rise of fascism, Marxism and now socialism (perhaps the most widespread and enduring of “isms”). Observing this pattern can make one cynical as to the prospect of any real progress or meaningful change. Are not the vast majority of us asleep? Are we not largely guided by subtle currents of influence and brainwashed by advertising? Are we not lost in a sea of media (mainstream or otherwise) and content that is impossible to process?

Today many seem to care about the environment, I am broadly in favor of this. But the question must be asked, why do they care? Is it through a project of individual research or discovery? Or is it simply that they care because they have been told to care incessantly from every imaginable source. The outcome of such messaging is not as distressing as the effectiveness of this light brain washing. For surely if it can be used for fairly vanilla purposes it can also be used for darker ones too. So to return to original question: what is normal? Normal can be whatever you are told repeatedly and asked to adopt unquestioningly. Beliefs that are truly a matter of choice cannot be categorized as “normal”¬∑ For example, in the UK we are free to believe in whatever religion or lack thereof we choose. In light of this being religious cannot be described as “normal”. It is a item of choice. Following UK lock down restrictions is not an item of choice, paying taxes is not an item of choice. Normality is very valuable to those who need it to justify their existence and it must be maintained at all costs. This said, I do not want be seen to be sliding here into a fashionable and toothless anarchism. Talk is cheap. What I would offer is this advice: if you are told to do something repeatedly by those who have no skin in the game question it1.

Normality is also a great comfort and a necessary one in cruel and uncertain world we live in. The absence of normality is often accompanied by poverty, deprivation and unease. From the security of normality people can make plans, start a business, a family and take risks. The normal development of children is entirely dependent on the strength of the mother-child relationship. In its absence psychological and physical disorders of all kinds are inflicted on the child. In light of this positive aspect of normal it is easy to understand why it is so dogmatically enforced and how under the canopy of its virtues so much that is pernicious is smuggled in. Fundamentally almost all people desire some basic level of comfort and provision for the necessities of life. Without these we are so caught up in the struggle for survival that we can never grow or try anything new. In my own case, I was so busy last year trying to survive economically that a mild unease underpinned many of the things I did. However, is there not a element of normality that has the effect of a sedative? For when everything is following a trajectory that we feel in control of our desire to question and interrogate our experience pacified. The necessity of criticism and inquiry is obvious when something has gone wrong. The need is far less obvious, and seen by some as pathology, when all is well.

Our society is becoming increasingly autistic the ubiquity of smartphones has lead to a atrophy of our social abilities. The post pandemic world that we inhabit seems to the logical conclusion of a trend that has been occurring for years. There is something very Hegelian about the way the agenda our society is becoming more and more anti-social. We are in the midst of a great social experiment, will the eventual lifting of restrictions lead to change of course in human relations where we finally realize that we need to wean ourselves off our addiction to social media? Alternatively, the trajectory we are on may remain stubbornly unaltered as people are drawn inexorably under the spell of big tech. I say these things as a nerd who makes living in IT and has learnt immeasurable amounts from internet (this blog could not exist without it). It is not technology I am opposed to without it I would be greatly impoverished: financially, intellectually, artistically and emotionally. What I am against is the how discourse online is increasingly controlled by a cabal of companies that can remove and censor user content at whim. Of course, if the user base makes a decisive move away from them they are in trouble, so to some extent we get the internet we deserve. Hopefully recent events online will be wake up call to many that we are too dependent on a few businesses to provide all of our services on the internet. A more diverse ecosystem must replace this.

The break with normality that be caused by the pandemic has clearly been seen by many as ideological opportunity the somewhat sinister phrase “build back better” has somehow entered currency. The questions must be raised as to who will be doing the building and who will be directing it? For if it primarily guided by existing power structures I fear we will get the same again and worse.

In conclusion, a simple recommendation or condemnation of normality is simply no intellectually viable. The associations it contains are complex and also to a great extent relative. In light of this it defies simple analysis. I have done my best to shed some light on the issue but must admit there is so much more that could be said. I will revisit this topic at a later date to see what has changed and what is merely the familiar disguised as novelty. I want to be an optimist but I fear such a outlook may be delusional. This crisis will undoubtedly serve as a great distraction; whilst we are living in fear and struggling those highly placed have license to do things they would not normally get away with. The idea of a vaccine passport would have been unthinkable before, now it is openly discussed. It is short hop from this to a bio metric passport. The invasion of personal freedom shows no signs of slowing down.

Looking Back on 2020

As this year draws to a close I have decided to look back in order to see what lessons both musical and general can be taken from this truly strange year. As crisis go the global pandemic has been a boring one, but a crisis none the less. My musical life has been badly damaged by the situation. I haven’t played a gig since February and have lost money that was due to me for performances because of venues being shutdown and a promoter not having any cash flow (at least this is what I have been told). You don’t know how much you need something in your life until it is gone. This has certainly held true for concerts. Going to shows both as a performer and as part of the audience has been a central part of my life for years.

However, there have been some positive things too. San Raquel have finally been able to release our EP and I have been able to finish my own solo album Shadows which will be being released soon. I am very proud of this album, it captures an emotional journey that I have been on for the last few years and I have only just come to the end of. Without all the free time I have been given by being stuck at home for so long I don’t think I would have been able to accomplish this. Work has begun on the follow up, I have a title and a rough idea of where I want to go musically, some of the songs are nearly complete with others still in very early stages.

Something that has occupied my mind recently especially as there is now news of a vaccine and life returning to some degree of normality is what in our society will be changed post-pandemic and what will simply revert how things used to be. I think it is going to take a long time for the music industry to come back from this. Many musicians have had to change careers, venues have shut, workers have been made redundant. It seems likely there will be tremendous demand for live music once the restrictions are eased. However, the network of different businesses that make live music as we know it possible will not simply spring back into action immediately. There will likely be lag between the end of social distancing and the return of what we used to know.

What lessons have I learned this year? Advice can be a dangerous thing that can represent the mistaken effort to take your own situation and impose it on another’s. This said, I humbly submit to you the following suggestions:

  • You cannot plan for everything, even the most carefully thought out strategy will not survive the unexpected.
  • Success without struggle is meaningless.
  • Be grateful for what you have it can be taken away from you in a moment.
  • In the face of death all that is trivial and inessential falls away.

The last lesson I received from Steve Jobs, although it has become cliché to praise him I must commend to you this speech:

I will do my best to take new risks in 2021 and avoid simply slipping into old patterns and habits. I will once again try and dare to do what is foolish.

The greatest lesson this year has taught me is that the truly unexpected can never be accounted for. Even the best plans can be nullified in an instant, I nor anyone else can control the flow of life. It is moved by inscrutable motivations and unseen forces, we are simply caught in the current. The choices send us this way and that, but ultimately we move within fixed parameters of reality. I think there is a larger purpose at work in my life, however, I know this intuitively not through reasoning. I do not count this as an item of dogma. If we ultimately deal only what we can prove we will live a very limited life and cut ourselves off from any experience of transcendence.

This year has also taught me to be less certain. How many times in my life have a felt so certain I was right only to find new information that tore the mental edifice down? Whilst perpetual skepticism is neither desirable nor tenable, a certain level of self criticism and doubt is beneficial. Without it all forms of delusional and fanatical thinking will take root in our minds. Of course, it must be mentioned that precisely what should be classified as “delusional” or “fanatical” is not widely agreed upon, so I do not offer any easy solutions here.

Another lesson that has be gifted to me by the pandemic and the current restrictions in the UK is the fickle nature of moral standards and how quick people are to fall in line and follow the status quo. The threat of a health emergency has lead to vast swathes of people (myself included) to surrender their liberties. This is not to say that measures designed to protect others health are inherently wrong. What I am saying is that the way they have been enforced with fines and police patrols is authoritarian. If one has to resort to force it is often a sign that one has lost the argument. I fear in the case of UK government this may be accurate. From what I can see online there seems to be a lively debate on what the correct approach for containing the virus is. Whilst I am not is a position to provide certain judgements on such questions I will say that I would be surprised if in future years there received wisdom about the virus and the measures used to contain it are overturned. What I can say with more certainty is that appears to have been no real discussion as to what extent public health must be weighed against economic and civil liberties. The current position appears to be that life must be saved at all costs. Ideas such as the inevitability of death and that quality of life is just as important as quantity are taboo. Of course, dying slowly of a ruthless of disease is a horrible fate. Nor would I want to loose a loved on to the virus. However, the side effects of the efforts to stop the virus are just as bad, many lives have be ruined financially, emotionally and spiritually by government restrictions. This is especially true for those who occupy a more precarious position in our society. Socialist interventions have hit the poor the worst, such a catastrophe does not fit into the conventionally narrative of big government.

Given the right guidance people are more than capable of taking reasonable precautions. People should be allowed to make their own judgement about risks they are willing to take. These ideas were originally articulated by Lord Jonathan Sumption who has been speaking out about the current situation.

In our politics there seems to a complete lack of opposition to the dominant narrative. I guess that this should come to no surprise as any politician linked to virus deaths would become electorally toxic. This is not to say that politicians in this country are totally without principles but that as far as I can tell the leadership of two main parties are in broad agreement on the need for continued lockdowns the only difference is that Conservatives in their graciousness have allowed us to celebrate Christmas. It is none of the governments business what people choose to do in the privacy of their own homes. Christmas is not theirs to take away or give back. The banning of public acts of worship is likewise a shocking infringement of religious liberties.

Another lamentable characteristic of the current situation is that in the discussion there appears to be no mention of the people who are largely to blame for the pandemic, the Chinese government. If it had not be for their attempts to ignore the spread of the virus (and possible cover it up) the virus might have been better contained. It may have even come from a biological research facility run by them. If this silence to be interpreted as a tacit admission that we no longer have the will or the strength to oppose them? At least it got a mention in the US presidential debates. Behind closed doors more may be going on.

In closing, look forward to a better 2021 free from face masks, hysteria and empty streets.