In Pullin’s text, the opposition of universal is the “remarkable”, while the universal corresponds to the unremarkable, familiar, extra ordinary, and super normal. Here, the “super normal” means the ability to blend into daily life and serves its users effectively without drawing attention to its meticulously designed qualities or its relationship to the surrounding environments. Furthermore, as Pullins quotes Rams in the text, “Good design is unobtrusive…they are neither decorative object nor work of art. Their design should… leave room for the user’s self-expression” (7). Therefore, Pullin and Ram’s interpretation of the super normal can be read as supplementary tools to augment the lived experience of users without overshadowing their identities. Its unremarkable quality stands in opposition to Dunne and Raby’s proposal of B-listed design that is speculative and critical, or design that uses its very existence as agency for asking questions, debate, friction, and provocation.
In Hendren’s chapter on “Chair”, the universal also means the accessibility of the DIY process for non-design professionals (aka parents, caretakers, OTs) and the horizontal knowledge system that acknowledge their contribution. Additionally, the universal also signifies the adaptability of the design itself as the users’ body develops and changes. Different from Pullin’s focus on the role of design professionals in delivering super normal designs, Hendren and Manzini’s highlights the participatory / diffuse design process and the adaptive nature of the projects as core to universality. This participatory and adaptive nature of this approach find parallels in the history of DIY hacks by disabled people to navigate inaccessible spaces (Williamson) and the disability-led design campaigns (Halstead).
Personally, I found the notion of “super normal” proposed by Pullin resonates with the concept of “embodiment” used in critical disability studies. As Wilkerson puts it, “Embodiment is a way of thinking about bodily experience that is not engaged solely with recovering the historical mistreatment of disabled people. Rather, it includes pleasures, pain, suffering, sensorial and sensual engagements with the world, vulnerabilities, capabilities, and constraints as they arise within specific times and places.” Namely, embodiment is rooted in the sensorial and emotional experiences of living ordinary everyday life. This emphasis on ordinary vulnerability and struggles echoes how the “super normal” acknowledges the “subtleties that can be overlooked and undervalued” (Pullin 5). Compared to heroic or triumphant narratives of the disabled experiences, the “super normal” nature of embodiment centers discussion on how disability is an inherently “normal” and ordinary elements of human life course. By critiquing the segregation between normal vs. abnormal bodies, unremarkable vs. triumphant disabled experiences, the “embodiment” of the extra ordinary bodies and the application of the “super normal” design can be integrated as a conceptual framework to guide works on de-stigmatizing and de-mystifying disability. This framework can help the design model to steer away from the hype of technological innovation that may overlook the relationship between users and their bodies.