The Role of Normalization in Ideology (Normalization Pt 1)

The Role of Normalization in Ideology

Hello everyone!  I took some time off during my holiday break, but I’m back!  I’m still trying to navigate the best way to continue putting out the content I want, without long lapses.  My goal for 2021 is to continue providing a couple of posts each month, while trying out some new ideas.  I am under no illusion that this will grow to be a popular website, but I do hope the people who come to consistently read this page appreciate and enjoy the content. Now, onto the post….

Over the last four years, the media has consistently invoked the normalization of Trump as the ultimate toxic play to be avoided.  The fear was that his (supposedly) exceptional behavior would become normal.  This post is an introductory investigation into the relationship between ideology and normalization. Recall the key ways ideology is reproduced across space and time:  it naturalizes, eternalizes, and historicizes a certain set of assumptions that become “common sense” knowledge of how societies are ordered.  I often refer to structures, meaning formal and informal institutions that exercise power in the maintenance and organization of day-to-day life for most people.  In a capitalist society, the exercise of power is inextricably tied to the distribution of wealth and income, as they are gateway tools without which there is no access to the necessities of life.

The connection between the three functions of ideology and normalization are somewhat intuitive. The traditional definition of normalization is “the process of bringing or returning something to a normal condition or state.”  We can also understand it through contrasts with its opposite:  the exceptional.  Discussions about normalization inevitably require an understanding, explicit or implicit, of what is exceptional (what is to be avoided) versus what is normal (what is to be embraced).  The result is that normalization substantially overlaps with common sense, something that is always ideological at its core. Looking at the three functions of ideology, normalization is a key process because it presents ideological positions as natural and inevitable outcomes of human historical development. 

Any theorizing of normalization requires an investigation into the relationship between the normal and the exceptional, what we take as normal, and the moral and ethical assumptions that underly this normality. Because of the intuitive and substantial overlap between normalization, the exceptional, and ideological, it’s a topic I hope to return to throughout these opening months of our new presidential administration.  These are uniquely fruitful periods to analyze normalization because of the attendant political actions in the process.  For example, Biden needs to appoint a cabinet, leading to debates about the types of values and leaders that should guide key areas of US policy.  He will also define the first 100 days of his agenda, widely recognized in political circles as a key signal of a president’s priorities and approaches.

As ideology, normalization is also often depoliticization.  It takes what should be Political battles over the values, structures, and purpose surrounding a given issue and replaces them with a shared assumption that these battles are illegitimate distortions of a natural and ideal way of thinking about social and political issues. The result is a continuation of dominant ideologies as they infiltrate the realm of unquestioned common sense. 

In mainstream liberal media outlets (the vast majority of consumed print and television media in the United States), the exception to be avoided is Trump.  There has been a barrage of media coverage insisting that the public be diligent in refusing to normalize Trump’s behavior (even as these outlets also cover every single facet of his persona 24/7).  This coverage has also been an abysmal failure, prompting even higher turnout for his reelection, a fan base more devoted now than it was in 2016, and furthering cultural and political divides in America.

What is it that must not be normalized?  Usually, the answer comes down to corruption, authoritarianism, fascism, or some combination of the three. If these are behaviors we must prevent from becoming normal, then there is an implicit assumption at play that these behaviors are not a part of the ongoing landscape of American politics.  The case for this is shoddy at best- NSA spying, foreign intervention, excessive money in politics, the two-party system crowding out any alternative discourse, and a media environment characterized by total monopolistic corporate control of information are just a few examples of ongoing realities that also pre-date Trump.

Mainstream media is onto something here- namely, they recognize that they play key roles in deciding what is normalized versus exceptional.  Normalization is always occurring because of its intrinsic relationship to ideology.  The normal becomes common sense which is our ideology- the things we take as a given, take for granted, assume to be true, or put outside the bounds of critical inquiry.  Media coverage of Biden’s transition and early presidency gives us stark insight into what the media is and is not willing to normalize.  As such, those two aspects of Biden’s presidency will be my focus in future posts.

Because of the inevitability of the process of normalization and its role in the creation and maintenance of ideologies, we should not view normalization as something that should be opposed or eliminated.  That would be impossible. It is the act of criticism and questioning of what is and is not framed as exceptional that is vital to creating spaces for new ideas, approaches, and methods of societal organization. Ideology emerges as an inevitability because it is a necessary component of social reproduction.  We often view reproduction as a biological necessity to further our species, but its relevance expands far beyond the individual.  The relationships between individuals and groups, the structures used to organize society, and the rules governing those relationships and structures all need to be transmitted from one generation to the next. 

Althusser characterizes two components that must be reproduced.  The first are productive forces- the materials and institutions that make things we consume.  This could be a wide range of things, from the food and water society needs to the institutions that help distribute these resources.  The second are the relationships of production.  This is not the material product or institution that helps distribute resources, but the relationships of the actors within those institutions, as well as the relationships those institutions generate outside of themselves. It is, if not easy, surely instinctive for a community to continue to produce the things it needs in order to live.  The trick is to get everyone to understand and accept their role in the process of production and distribution, which is hierarchically organized. 

This is an especially daunting task in a capitalist society because capitalism generates a continual stream of instability and inequality through the relationship between capitalist and laborer.  By definition, profit creates an excess of money at the top of an organizational hierarchy while those at the bottom get less.  Antagonistic relationships inevitably result- all things else being equal, there will still be inequality in the distribution of income and wealth. Some groups will benefit while others falter. Normalization can limit the severity of this conflict and instability by placing a wide swathe of political, economic, and social perspectives as beyond the bounds of change, and conditioning individuals to accept the order of things as natural, eternal, and inevitable. Ideology is the glue that maintains enough continuity between the norms and beliefs of generations to secure the continuation of the political, cultural, and economic structures that shape society.

Ideology isn’t the only way to reproduce social relations- the state also has a repressive arm that can engage in direct violence-so how and why does it gain such a prominent role in our maintenance of socio-economic relations?  The police, the military, the court, and/or the prison are all sites where the state exercises direct force to maintain stable relations.  Their role is to punish, discipline, and sometimes sequester individuals that do not abide by societal norms.  The issue becomes the inefficiency and incompatibility this repressive arm has with the role of the ‘free market’ as a central organizing principle of capitalism. For goods and services to circulate freely and excessively as capitalism requires, there must be some predictability in the operation of the structures of distribution.  A state that only ensures social reproduction through the brutality of overt force cannot provide this predictability.  Instead, the repressive arm of the state focuses on targeted segments of society seen as unproductive and unruly (the lower classes and minorities). Ideology is a much more efficient way to ensure social reproduction. Ideological state apparatuses, which are arms considered part of civil society (such as the school, media, or church), are sites that nonetheless extend the ideological vision of the state: individuals are taught the norms of society over time, slowly, and layered in as everyday common knowledge.  Instead of repression, ISAs seek to generate consent from within (very similar to Foucault’s thesis on the productive nature of power). The ultimate product is the normalization of social relationships that perpetuate and expand inequality through capitalism.

It is crucial to conceptualize the repressive and ideological roles played in social reproduction as two methods for the same outcome- a society that consents to the expansion of exploitive and antagonistic relations divided along race, gender, and class. In future posts, I will be examining various perspectives that have been and continue to be normalized, which also requires an examination of what is exceptional.  The purpose of reinvigorating the Political is to draw clear lines over what is and is not normalized, to expose things that are normalized to critical inquiry, and to further unpack the relationship between exception (usually framed as crisis) and normality.  To accept mainstream framings of normalization without tackling these questions would be a further contribution to depoliticization.  It’s vital to center this questioning of norms precisely because it can provide us with the tools needed to re-politicize the social and economic relationships we now take as common sense.