Jackson Wasn't Normal. So what?

The concept of "normal'' was born among astronomers. Observatories once were plagued by small discrepancies in different people's measurements of the same object, until, early in the 19th century, the mathematician Karl Gauss discovered that those errors occurred in a predictable pattern: Most came just above or below an average. And the further an answer was from that average, the rarer it was. That pattern in the data has proved useful throughout science. It's the famous "bell curve,'' or normal distribution.

For almost a century, the statistical concept has also been applied to measurements of populations -- heights, birth rates, tax payments, body mass indices, and so on. But a strange thing happened during this transfer from stars to people: The idea became loaded with moral and political meaning. For Adolphe Quetelet, the Belgian astronomer who first applied the "normal distribution'' concept to social issues, the "average man,'' at the center of any bell curve, wasn't just common. He was also best: "the type of all which is beautiful -- of all which is good.'' To be normal, average, and typical, was to be right.

This assumption became a part of social science and then a part of middle-class common sense. Today, we think, to be normal is good; to be abnormal is bad -- unhealthy, immoral, less than adequate. Unlike our medieval ancestors, who wished to live up to the extraordinary example of saints and emperors and holy fools, we've set the bar in the middle.

This prejudice in favor of the typical is on full display this week, as the world reacts to the death of Michael Jackson. Amid all the acknowledgments of his talent and drive is a steady, persistent strain of smugness: This pathetic guy wasn't normal. He had weird tastes, bizarre self- indulgences, and of course he'd been accused of a loathsome crime that -- never mind his acquittal -- normal people never are never charged with. One of his songs was about a rat, one of his friends was a chimp. Poor guy. So not-regular.

"Watching him change his race, his age, and almost his gender,'' Andrew Sullivan wrote last week, "you saw a tortured soul seeking what the rest of us take for granted: a normal life.'' Approvingly, Sullivan linked to an essay by Michael Kinsley from the 1980's, which blamed Time magazine's Jackson coverage for suggesting "that there is something wonderful about being an incompetent human being.'' Why, Kinsley added, "the only truly normal thing Time describes Jackson doing is listening to the soundtrack of Oklahoma.'' The theme had come to a crescendo when Jackson was on trial on the molestation charges, when the public learned just how weird he was as it pondered whether he had committed a truly despicable crime. The crime was quickly conflated with the weirdness, as if feeling free to have a pet giraffe necessarily meant feeling free to abuse children. Cave-man style, a New York Post headline summed it up in a headline describing the wait for a verdict: "SWEAT, FREAK.''

Now that the man has been buried, the drums beat more in pity than anger (except for Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican who called Jackson a "lowlife''), but the spirit is the same: pundits weigh extraordinary talent and achievements against averageness, and decide that being average was more important. Some blame capitalism for Jackson's strangeness. Some blame pop culture. Many agree, though, that Jackson was bad -- the bad bad, not the good bad -- because he wasn't normal. "By the end -- and in fact, long before the end,'' wrote the columnist Rod Dreher, "the poor man ceased to be a person, and became instead a pathology.''

Suppose we were to honor the statistical origins of the word "normal'' and consider what Michael Jackson's life would have been like had he not been a "freak.'' What, in the stats, could we predict about an average African-American man from Gary Indiana, born in 1958?

For one thing, he wouldn't have that much longer to live. Life expectancy for African-American men is just over 66 years in the United States, and Michael Regular Guy Jackson would be about to turn 51. Given typical fertility rates for African-Americans, he'd have kids. Maybe a legal breakup in his past (as the Census Bureau estimates that four out of every ten marriages end in divorce). If he'd followed his father into Gary's steel mills he'd have years ago lost his secure job as the industry there shrank. Given Gary's rates of poverty and crime, he be more likely than an average American to have struggled financially, and more likely to have been the the victim of a crime.

Or perhaps Michael Regular Jackson would have found an average-guy job at one of Gary's big employers, like Bank of America, Sara Lee or Oracle. He might have considered himself lucky, especially given the current downturn (Gary's unemployment rate is 15.6 percent compared to a national average of 6.9 percent). He might well have trouble making ends meet (Gary's average annual salary is $33,000) and might well also be sitting tonight at the table in his workaday normal kitchen, wondering how he could make it all work in this sick economy (SWEAT, NORMAL GUY).

Now, this typical life of scrimping and worrying and working at what you can get -- well, it's perfectly O.K. But think -- no time for music, no drive to do what hasn't been done before, no trips down into the mysterious wells of fantasy, where you can't always tell the inspirations from the traps. In this alternative universe, we get a middle-aged, respectable black guy of whom Andrew Sullivan might approve -- a man you might comfortably share a few beers with, who won't get stares when he walks down Main Street. Is that better than finding and using his powers to the fullest, to re-invent pop music? Does Michael Typical Jackson do more good for the world, or himself? That typical life is perfectly OK. But the apostles of normal claim it would have been better than the life of the Michael Jackson we knew. Sure doesn't look like a slam-dunk case to me.

But maybe I'm being unfair. Perhaps the praisers of "normal'' would have preferred Michael Jackson to be culturally conventional, not necessarily statistically average. Maybe their ideal is a guy doing what most people do because we've learned over the ages that these standards make for the best sort of life.

In that case, let's not imagine the hypothetical Jackson as a middling cipher, but instead assume his talent and drive remained. We see them now channeled into a "normal'' career, fit for a serious, typical man of Jackson's generation. Suppose he applied himself and became someone who wore a tie to work instead of a rhinestoned glove. Who went to church, preached family values, had three or four nice normal children and a normal wife. Someone like, say, Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina.

Oops. But then, that's the trouble with normality -- no amount of it can protect anyone against his own passions and fears. Everyone's life has moments that feel very far from normal, and those moments just happen to be when we feel most human, most alive, and most ourselves. The statistics that define "normality'' can serve as a predictor of how likely you are to live in Antarctica or weigh 500 pounds; the conventions of being a regular guy can make you look reassuring and trustworthy to others. These concepts have their uses. But they are no guide to life.

So, if you really think being normal was a better fate than being Michael Jackson, all I can say is: have a nice life.

Follow David Berreby on Twitter: www.twitter.com/davidberreby

Comments

[Fausta]

Right on!
It's been a month and I am still feeling so mournful about MJ's death.
I think you are really getting at something with "smugness."

Let's face it: we would all like to be wildly talented, wealthy, free to do as we like.
At first, MJ was the gifted child, amazing us with his precocity.
Then he engaged our teenage, rebellious selves and busted out from his family,
remade himself so he was totally gorgeous. If he had stopped at the Thriller look,
no one would ever have had anything to say much about his appearance.
We totally identified with all this and it felt good! But how long can we endure idolizing
someone so distant?

Envy and the awareness of our own ordinariness were assuaged by MJ's morphing
into "weirdo": See? we said, look what happens when you're so rich that you can afford
to change your face 20 times? Looks what happens when your deepest dreams come true,
MJ as the emblem of a comforting morality play: you're better off with your mediocre self...forget about dreaming.

And then we could enjoy that really dubious pleasure, righteous indignation
on behalf of the money-grubbing parents who sent their children on a mission to
see if they could get some money off MJ.
I'm not being very coherent here, but maybe it will ring a bell.

[fixer2009]

Both incisively factual and infused with a profounder understanding of human life -

Loved this line, Mr. Berreby - it sums up what it is that will allow us to empathize with MJ even without imposing procrustean notions of normality on him.

"that's the trouble with normality -- no amount of it can protect anyone against his own passions and fears"

[ocotilla]

Hear ! Hear ! Just so. Great post. Makes no sense to suggest that a genius should be normal. They never are, being in the grip of a creative daimon, to borrow from Jung and Campbell, which is passing through them. Michael Jackson articulated this truth many times - that he was a conduit for something that came to him from the great Out There. I admire his courage for listening to that voice and in taking that wild ride.

The writers who extol the virtue of normal, whatever that is, ignore the fact that if you scratch the surface
of anyone's persona, we are all strange. The Firesign Theater had a funny way of saying it: We are
all Nearly Normal...

[Jim5468745]

One of the best pieces I've read on Jackson, and I've read MANY since June 25th, thank you. Nobody should feel sorry for Michael Jackson. He literally did it all and in his own way. If I lived a hundred of my mundane lifetimes I wouldn't have the life and influence he did in just 50 years. I celebrate Jackson's music and memory and the freedom of USA that allowed his success.

[murly]

Thank you for this post. I've often felt that if Michael had had a more masculine image, he could have done pretty much what he pleased and not been so vilified for it. I see the ridicule as being due largely to homophobia. I don't think Michael was gay, but many saw him that way, and therefore it became open season on him.

[anick]

I Concur... normal is an excuse not to do more or become more than you or anyone else might expect.

Great article!!!!!

[Sunshine444]

GREAT article - THANK YOU!
I wish there were MORE not normal people out there - MORE creative souls trailblazing the way and inspiring others to find their own path - use their God-given talents on this planet to make it a better place. That is what Michael did - BRAVO to him! The more boundaries he pushed, the more I liked him. May he watch over our planet and our children as a beautiful musical angel, continuing to be anything but normal. God Bless Michael.

[BassMonk]

There is no such thing as a 'normal' or 'average' person. Every person is unique.

[Rule Of Law]

here's what I don't get:

He didn't invent rock and roll, like Little Richard or Chuck Berry.

He didn't revolutionize it like the Beatles.

He didn't create a movement that ended a war like so many San Francisco bands and the Buffalo Springfield/CSN did.

He WAS a very talented performer, singer, dancer, choreographer but, IMHO, not a groundbreaker. So while his talent was memorable and will be missed, this drive to sainthood makes no sense to me.

[BlackJAC]

Maybe it has to do with the Horatio Alger story his life took.

[tanustar]

Here's something:

He was the first African-American entertainer to have mass global appeal! It may seem like something little, but, these things matter to many AA's. Things like this matter to minority populations no matter where in the world they live. Too complicated to explain today!

[Rule Of Law]

It's an interesting point, but as a veteran of the 60s music scene, I remember shows by mo-town groups that had audiences as white as the driven snow. Cross over has happened before. Was Michael a special entertainer--Sure, his performance at the Grammys that one year where it was just him on stage, blew me away. But he still isn't the force in music that the folks I've mentioned were.

[GrainneKathleen]

great article. i am reminded in my own life of being judged by some close relatives for many of the unconventional choices i have made. they didn't approve of what i see as my calling to be an artist - how would i ever support myself and be able to marry a nice normal guy and have nice, normal children? my friendships made them squirm, my activism made them angry, my refusal to commit to a religion made them afraid for me, my hours and hours spent on creative projects seemed like such a waste of time. but i have always felt secure enough in my own skin to know that i am living eccentrically (meaning, from my center) and am on a journey that daily thrills me. i have no desire to be normal - i like to continually surprise myself and to be surprised.
michael jackson was a beautiful soul, no matter what the police of "the normal"have to say. he created beauty where there was none. did he make some unconventional choices in his life? definitely! were they always the best choices in regard to his own well being and safety navigating a world where there is tremendous pressure to be normal? no, as we see in the heartaches and humiliations he experienced very publicly. would he do it all over again? who knows for sure, but i suspect yes.

[BlackJAC]

The whole "normal" thing seems connected to a pack-animal mentality of needing to belong to a group.

[deedar]

Great, great article. I too signed up just to tell you thank you, so - thank you. Genius rarely walks the "normal" path. Michael Jackson was clearly a genius.

[deedar]

I too, loved your article. It was truly an excellent post. Genius typically does not walk the "normal" path. Michael Jackson was truly a genius.

[Rule Of Law]

There is a difference between not "normal" (whatever that is) and aberrant.

[octopi]

Then may I remind you that Michael Jackson was innocent under the rule of law.

[doctarr]

The main problem I have with Michael Jackson is the fact that he slept with children, unrelated to him, in his bed.

No, I didn't say he molested them, he slept with them in his bed, something he admitted to in interviews.


Now to those who chalk that up as a minor eccentricity, I say, such minor eccentricities in the most revered star of his day are not so minor. People emulated Michael Jackson all around the world, dressed like him, wanted to be like Mike.

So when Michael says what's the big deal in sleeping with children unrelated to you in the same bed, what kind of door does that open for pedophiles all around the world. Once again, whether or not he was one, or did anything inappropriate, the mere fact that Mike said it was okay, put such a dangerous practice in a position where others could cite his words as justification to deem it normal.

It wasn't. It was a dangerous precedent. It was bad. And Michael Jackson should have known and acknowledged that fact, instead of trying to justify it with his celebrity.

[catlady777]

doctarr:

I agreed with your post so much. I am a fan of Michael Jackson, but must admit in the last few years I was very angry at his attitude about having children in his bed. After the first accusation he should have distanced himself from having unrelated children in his bedroom. His justification of this behavior opened a door of permission for those that would take advantage of a child's innocence. That said, I hope Michael is at peace. He was a great entertainer and humanitarian. I just hope the Jackson's use some good judgment and limit how much Joe Jackson has to do with raising Michael's children.