Useless concepts II – normal

Unlike natural, normal does not even mean anything. It is an arbitrary term coined in 1849. It is derived from mathematics where it meant average or mediocre, and only became an ideal after World War II, to depict whatever the white men in power at the time deemed useful to them, to keep them in power and in control of the rest of the population. Specifically, for gender roles which became blurred due to necessity for work force during war time, and which needed to be restored to “normal”.

The book which truly popularized the term, “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” by Alfred Kinsey, actually argued against the use of this term, and the author tried to show that man’s behaviour and what is deemed “normal” are not actually compatible. Nonetheless, the public came to idealise “normality” even in the face of it’s nonexistence. This only comes to show that arguing against an idea will only make it more powerful.

“A man will die, but not his ideas”

There are several dictionary definitions, of course there are:

1. conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern : characterized by that which is considered usual, typical, or routine

“which is considered usual, typical, or routine” by who? You would say the majority of people, but here you are wrong. But we live in a democracy! Do we?

Let’s take this example of “normal working hours”, which is 40 hours a week, from 9 to 5. Who decided that? Henry Ford decided that during the late nineteenth century, during the industrial Revolution, because he realized that working more hours didn’t actually improve productivity. So basically, these are the hours that are the most an average person can work to be productive. More and productivity decreases. Less and productivity isn’t necessarily maximised for the employer. Nowhere in here does it matter what is really best for the worker, namely the majority of people. Of course, comparing to working until they drop as before this reglementation, it is better? Yes. But “normal”? no. It is the maximum amount of time to work and still be productive, not the average time to work to be productive. So not normal.

2. according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, procedure, or principle

– all of these rules & co are arbitrary and have een decided by men at one time or another. The definition doesn’t mean anything. Instead of saying “you are not normal”, you could say “you are not acting in accordance with my values or expectations”. This is no longer about stigmatizing the person you are addressing, but expressing a need for shared values and expectations and it can lead to a conversation and a possible solution for both sides as opposed to bullying the other person in acting the way you expect them to. And sometimes an agreement is not possible. That is ok too.

3. occurring naturally

Disease is occurring naturally. As in it is normal to be sick in a diseased society. Next!

4. approximating the statistical average or norm

We can clearly see that mediocrity is the norm. Which is only natural. People want better, progress, profit, more, but value the average. It sucks, if you think about it 🤷🏼‍♀️ Luckily, normal people do not.

5. generally free from physical or mental impairment or dysfunction : exhibiting or marked by healthy or sound functioning

But we just said normal si something that occurs naturally (4th definition), and physical and mental impairment also occurs naturally, so why aren’t they normal? Could it be because of stigma, fear of different and fear of being impaired and not functioning independently because you cannot be botehre,so who would bother with you, right?

Sound functioning means something reliable, as in functioning the way it was intended. Problem is with living organisms, the weren’t intended to function in any specific way. Not even to reproduce. Not all living organisms are meant to reproduce, most just create a safe environment for other organism to reproduce. And at any rate, no living organism behaves the same in any circumstance and they most definitely cannot be healthy anywhere but in specifics environments. Maybe if we would provide a safe space for all, than all could thrive. Maybe the problem is not the individual not being normal, but teh environment not being suited for them.

6. not exhibiting defect or irregularity

I am pretty sure that if we look at the “average” of anything,it has a lot of defects. Take the “average American man and woman” whom look quite disproportionate. Da Vinci would have surely not approved.

7. within a range considered safe, healthy, or optimal

Optimal for what? Who decided the “range” ? On what bases did they decide that? Did our circumstances and knowledge change in the meantime? Should we adjust ?

Continual improvement says we should. Corporate for the win. ✌🏼 So,normal it isn’t a fixed notion. The idea “it’s always been this way” crumples as one says it.

And there it is. Normal is safe. The psychosis of neurotypicals : fear of the other.

This fear is justified at a primal and animalic level. The other is a threat. The other used to be another species. However, in the last 3000 years (caused by the appearance of monotheistic religions) and even more so, since the Enlightenment (caused by the rise of capitalism), “the other” has become another human being. And who “the other” is has encompassed more and more people over the years.

There is a real possibility that “the other” is actually the majority now. That’s why it is important to speak up. Staying silent will make you feel alone, but when you talk, you’ll find out it isn’t like that at all.

LE: If all people are being at least averagely productive, wouldn’t the average become the minimum? Normal shouldn’t be an ideal. It is expected that some will be worst or better than others, and that’s not only fine, but inescapable, so there is no point in stigmatizing difference.