Empire of Normality

1. Normality is a Historical Construct Tied to Capitalism

In an important sense, what I want to show is that capitalism’s domination shifts more towards the neuronormative the further capitalism itself intensifies.

From Harmony to Normality. Historically, health was viewed as a state of balance or harmony within the body or between the body and its environment. This perspective shifted with the rise of capitalism, which introduced the concept of "normality" as a benchmark for evaluating health and ability. This shift wasn't merely a scientific advancement but a reflection of changing economic and ideological landscapes.

Capitalism's Influence. The capitalist mode of production, with its emphasis on competition and worker productivity, played a significant role in shaping the concept of normality. As societies transitioned from feudalism to capitalism, the idea of a "normal" person, brain, and mind became intertwined with economic demands and social hierarchies. This new standard was used to rank and control populations, often leading to oppressive outcomes.

The Empire of Normality. The concept of normality became deeply ingrained in collective consciousness, obscuring its historical genesis and contingency. This led to the emergence of what the author calls the "Empire of Normality," an apparatus of material relations, social practices, and scientific research programs that enforce a restricted range of bodily, cognitive, and emotional expression.

2. The Machine Metaphor Replaced Harmony in Understanding Health

For under capitalism, most of the population are workers who have little control over our prospects.

Descartes' Influence. The French philosopher René Descartes played a pivotal role in shifting the understanding of the body from a dynamic organism to a machine. Descartes likened the body to a complex machine made up of smaller mechanistic parts that worked together to maintain health. This mechanistic view of the body paved the way for modern medicine to emerge.

Capitalism's Embrace. The machine metaphor gained widespread acceptance during the Industrial Revolution, as it aligned with the capitalist emphasis on worker productivity. In this context, individuals were increasingly viewed as machines that could be working or broken, and their value was determined by their productive potential. This shift in perspective was not merely a scientific development but a reflection of the economic and ideological shifts of the age.

Productivity and the Body. As industrial capitalism intensified, the body, including the brain, came to be judged based on its perceived productivity. This led to the standardization of workers and the creation of new categories of "normal" and "abnormal" based on their ability to meet the demands of the industrial workplace. This new paradigm further entrenched the idea of the body as a machine, optimized for production.

3. Galton's Paradigm Naturalized Cognitive Hierarchies

The point of this for Galton was to formalise and amplify the normalising and control of populations, now legitimised as a scientific pursuit.

Galton's Contributions. Francis Galton, a British scientist, played a crucial role in developing the pathology paradigm, which emphasized the ranking of humans based on their natural abilities. Galton combined Darwin's theory of natural selection with Quetelet's statistical analysis to create a system that naturalized the cognitive hierarchies of industrial capitalism. This system ranked individuals and groups based on their perceived "eminence" or fitness, often reinforcing existing social inequalities.

Eugenics and Social Control. Galton's work laid the foundation for the eugenics movement, which sought to improve the genetic quality of the human population through selective breeding. This ideology was used to justify the control and marginalization of individuals and groups deemed "unfit" or "subnormal." Galton's paradigm also influenced the development of psychometrics and other scientific methods used to measure and classify human abilities.

Influence on Psychiatry. Galton's ideas had a significant impact on psychiatry, particularly through the work of Emil Kraepelin. Kraepelin expanded Galton's paradigm to encompass a broader range of mental disorders, seeking to classify and categorize them based on their underlying biological causes. This approach helped to solidify the pathology paradigm within psychiatry and related fields.

4. Eugenics Was a Global Movement with Devastating Consequences

It was this that would legitimise a mass expansion of these practices over the following decades – and, as we shall come back to, would in time be used to justify some of the worst atrocities ever committed.

Widespread Adoption. The eugenics movement gained traction across the globe, influencing policy and social attitudes in various countries. In the United States, eugenic policies led to the forced sterilization of individuals with intellectual disabilities and restrictions on immigration. Even prominent figures on the left, such as Sidney Webb and Bertrand Russell, embraced eugenic ideas.

Nazi Germany. The most extreme manifestation of eugenics occurred in Nazi Germany, where the ideology was used to justify the mass murder of people deemed "unfit" or "undesirable." The Nazi regime implemented policies of forced sterilization and euthanasia, targeting individuals with disabilities, mental illness, and other perceived genetic defects. This culminated in the Holocaust, where millions of Jews and other minority groups were systematically exterminated.

Legacy and Aftermath. The horrors of the Holocaust led to a decline in support for authoritarian eugenic policies in liberal societies. However, the underlying assumptions of the pathology paradigm persisted, influencing scientific research, clinical practice, and social attitudes towards disability. The legacy of eugenics continues to shape contemporary debates about genetic engineering, reproductive rights, and the value of human life.

5. Anti-Psychiatry's Critique, Though Influential, Had Limitations

For they saw the social control of patients not as stemming from capital and the state, but rather from the very idea of mental illness itself.

Szasz's Challenge. Thomas Szasz, a prominent figure in the anti-psychiatry movement, challenged the very concept of mental illness, arguing that it was a "myth" used to justify social control. Szasz argued that mental illness was not a genuine medical condition but rather a "problem in living" that should be addressed through individual responsibility and freedom. His critique gained traction in the 1960s and 1970s, influencing cultural attitudes and legal approaches to mental illness.

Asylum Closures. The anti-psychiatry movement contributed to the closure of many asylums, with the goal of liberating patients from coercive and controlling environments. However, the closure of asylums often led to unintended consequences, such as homelessness, imprisonment, and inadequate community support for former inmates. Many individuals with mental illness were simply shifted from one form of social control to another.

Unintended Consequences. Despite its initial promise, the anti-psychiatry movement had significant limitations. Szasz's libertarian ideology and denial of mental illness often served to justify cuts to services and welfare, leaving many individuals with mental health problems without adequate support. The movement's focus on individual responsibility also overlooked the broader social and economic factors that contribute to mental distress.

6. Fordism Tightened Norms and Expanded Control

And as we shall see in the following chapters, a new Fordist, and then neoliberal, ideology of normality that became dominant in the twentieth century fused with later iterations of the pathology paradigm across a variety of sciences.

Fordist Production. The rise of Fordism, an economic model based on mass production and standardized labor, brought new forms of social control and normalization. Fordist workplaces emphasized efficiency and conformity, leading to the standardization of workers and the marginalization of those who didn't fit the mold. This era also saw the rise of consumerism, with individuals pressured to conform to standardized desires and lifestyles.

Behaviorist Normalization. Behaviorism, a school of psychology that emphasized the modification of behavior through conditioning, gained prominence during the Fordist era. Behaviorist techniques were used to shape individuals to fit the demands of the workplace and society, often through the use of rewards and punishments. This approach contributed to a tightening of social norms and a greater emphasis on conformity.

Child Psychiatry and Psychology. The Fordist era also saw the rise of child psychiatry and psychology, which focused on identifying and treating developmental "abnormalities" in children. This led to the creation of new categories of childhood disorders and the implementation of interventions aimed at normalizing children's behavior and development. These interventions often reinforced existing social inequalities and contributed to the pathologization of difference.

7. Neoliberalism Intensified Cognitive Demands and Alienation

Either way, I argue, all human minds and selves are estranged from one another through the psychic hierarchies this produces.

Shift to Neoliberalism. The transition from Fordism to neoliberalism in the late 20th century brought new challenges to mental health and well-being. Neoliberal policies, such as privatization, deregulation, and austerity, led to increased economic inequality, job insecurity, and social fragmentation. These factors contributed to a rise in stress, anxiety, and depression, particularly among marginalized groups.

Cognitive Capitalism. The rise of cognitive capitalism, characterized by the increasing importance of knowledge and information in the economy, placed new demands on workers' cognitive abilities. This led to a tightening of cognitive norms and the marginalization of individuals who struggled to meet these demands. The constant bombardment of information and stimuli in the digital age also contributed to sensory overload and cognitive fatigue.

New Forms of Alienation. Neoliberalism brought new forms of alienation, as individuals were increasingly commodified and subjected to market forces. The emphasis on individual responsibility and self-management placed additional burdens on individuals, while social support systems were weakened. This led to a sense of isolation and disconnection, further exacerbating mental health problems.

8. The Neurodiversity Movement Challenges the Pathology Paradigm

For them, this would consist in a new movement that would be modelled on the earlier civil rights movements that had sought to end racial, gendered, and sexual segregation and oppression within and across borders.

Emergence of Neurodiversity. The neurodiversity movement emerged in the 1990s as a response to the pathologization and marginalization of neurodivergent individuals. The movement challenged the dominant view of neurological differences as deficits or disorders, instead promoting the idea that neurodiversity is a natural and valuable part of human variation. Neurodiversity proponents advocated for the acceptance and inclusion of neurodivergent individuals in all aspects of society.

Social Model of Disability. The neurodiversity movement drew on the social model of disability, which emphasizes the role of social and environmental factors in creating disability. This perspective shifted the focus from individual impairments to the barriers and biases that prevent neurodivergent individuals from fully participating in society. The movement sought to dismantle these barriers and create a more inclusive and accommodating world.

Paradigm Shift. The neurodiversity movement called for a paradigm shift in how we understand and respond to neurological differences. This shift involved moving away from the pathology paradigm, which emphasizes diagnosis and treatment, and towards a neurodiversity paradigm, which emphasizes acceptance, support, and empowerment. The movement sought to create a world where neurodivergent individuals are valued for their unique strengths and contributions.

9. Neurodivergent Marxism Offers a Radical Path to Liberation

Rather, it is to show how even when traditional forms of domination do lessen to even some small extent, they are merely replaced with increased neuronormative domination instead.

Beyond Liberalism. While the neurodiversity movement has made significant progress in raising awareness and promoting inclusion, the author argues that a more radical approach is needed to achieve true liberation. This approach, termed "Neurodivergent Marxism," combines the insights of neurodiversity theory with a Marxist analysis of capitalism and social domination. Neurodivergent Marxism seeks to address the underlying economic and systemic factors that contribute to neurodivergent oppression.

Capitalism and Neuronormativity. The author contends that capitalism is inherently neuronormative, meaning that it favors certain cognitive and emotional styles while marginalizing others. This leads to the creation of cognitive hierarchies and the exploitation of neurodivergent individuals for their labor. Neurodivergent Marxism seeks to challenge these hierarchies and create a more equitable and just society.

Alienation and Domination. Neurodivergent Marxism also addresses the issue of alienation, which refers to the estrangement of individuals from their own creative potential and from each other. The author argues that capitalism intensifies alienation, leading to increased rates of mental health problems and social isolation. Neurodivergent Marxism seeks to overcome alienation by creating more meaningful and fulfilling forms of work and social connection.

10. The Empire of Normality Requires Constant Resistance

Clarifying this problem is just the first step towards what will need to be a much more prolonged, collective effort to combat the Empire of Normality, that is, the apparatus that sits behind and necessitates the pathology paradigm.

Ongoing Struggle. The author emphasizes that the struggle against the Empire of Normality is an ongoing process that requires constant vigilance and resistance. This involves challenging the dominant narratives and practices that reinforce neuronormative ideals and advocating for policies and practices that promote inclusion and equity. It also requires building solidarity with other marginalized groups and working towards a more just and equitable world.

Collective Liberation. The author argues that neurodivergent liberation is intertwined with broader struggles for social justice. This means working to dismantle all forms of oppression, including racism, sexism, and classism, and creating a society where everyone has the opportunity to thrive. It also means challenging the underlying economic and political systems that perpetuate inequality and exploitation.

A Future Beyond Normality. The author concludes by calling for a radical reimagining of society, one that moves beyond the limitations of the Empire of Normality. This involves creating a world where neurodiversity is celebrated, where everyone has the opportunity to reach their full potential, and where the needs of all individuals are valued and respected. This is a future that requires collective action, critical thinking, and a commitment to building a more just and equitable world for all.

Last updated: March 16, 2025