Unilever, producer of skin and body care products, has announced that it will no longer market any look or form of body health as "normal". Some consumers, they explain, feel threatened and excluded by the concept of normality. There is henceforth no "normality" standard in hygiene, skin health, general health, or body weight.
Although in the sales business the customer is considered right, it seems ironic that "normality" would feel threatening. The word was not originally value-laden, since it derives from "norm" as used in geometry and draughting tools (the carpenter's square). The norm stood at right angles, and in that sense was standard, since a right angle is always going to be the same: 90 degrees.
Teacher training colleges used to be called Normal School because they aimed to keep to a standard or norm of learning and achievement. Now, even hair can't be normal. Maybe they should market "GoldenLocks" -- not too dry or oily, or hot or cold, but "just right".
It seems odd that the level or average state from which normality is inferred should seem threatening. It feels more threatening to fail to measure standard norms and patterns. Would a certain level of chaos not ensue, if your 90 degrees was different from my 90 degrees?
Yet some groups say they feel sub-standard in the face of normality, because it's normal. These people even, they testify, have panic attacks just from hearing the word. How paradoxical that "panic disorder" is triggered by feeling there might be too much order.
I'm not dry or oily ...
