An individual I spoke to a while back claimed that we always need a textbook definition of the word "normal," so that we know how weird we or other individuals are. But, what exactly is that definition? Is there one? Well, according to Webster, there are eight definitions:
1. Perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency.
2. According with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle; conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern.
3. Occurring naturally.
4. Of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development; free from mental disorder.
5. Having concentration of one gram equivalent of solute per liter; containing neither basic hydroxyl nor acid hydrogen; not associated; having a straight-chain structure.
6. Having the property that every coset produced by operating on the left by a given element is equal to the coset produced by operating on the right by the same element.
7. Relating to, involving, or being a normal curve or normal distribution.
8. Having the property of commutativity under multiplication by the transpose of the matrix each of whose elements is a conjugate complex number with respect to the corresponding element of the given matrix.
I'm going to concentrate on definitions 2 and 4:
2. According with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle; conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern.
and
4. Of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development; free from mental disorder.
Alright, so, conforming to norms that society imposes upon its citizens is basically what definition number two is stating. Okay, so, does every culture and civilization have their own definition of "normal?" Since they all have different norms? Or, is it a timeless universal phenomenon? If we still walked around like cavemen, then I could say it was timeless, but I don't know too many folk that do unless it's on Halloween, and even then, they are few and far between. Is it universal? Are all countries and their people the same? Believe the same? Think the same? No, okay, so it's not universal.
But, aren't norms constantly changing? How long ago was it "normal" to ask another, "Hey Buck, are you feeling gay today?" and when saying that, meant, "Are you feeling happy?" If you asked that today, it'd take on a completely different meaning and reaction from Buck. Clothing trends change by the day it seems. The norms in sports and in the entertainment world are ever-changing. So, what is normal? Is there such a thing? Do we base it upon a real-life person or a fictional character? If it's based on a real-life person, why did we pick him or her? And, since he or she has a unique gene make-up they can call their own, no one will be identical to them, so they will be the only "normal" specimen in the world. If we base it off a fictional character, then the only "normal" person to exist wouldn't truly exist at all. They'll just be a myth or a parable story for bosses and managers to tell their workers and players. So, why do we even have the word "normal," since, at the very most, one person in this world is, in fact, "normal"?
Is it to make the so-called outsiders feel awkward, and make them feel more at one by conforming to these ever-changing norms? Is it to take away from an individual's talents, gifts and beauties and mold them into who the leaders and authorities want them to be? Is it to be used as a label, so that people who consider themselves "normal" have others to point at and laugh about to make themselves feel more secure? Is it to be used as a way to make individuals feel insecure about themselves, some to the point of needing anti-depressants or other medications? Yes, there is a textbook definition, but there are eight of them, perhaps more. These definitions are vague, not telling a whole lot. Who is "normal?" Maybe Gumby, Mickey Mouse or Mario, but no real-life person, and we should all be proud of that. What would be fun about being "normal," anyway? Everyone walking the same way, talking the same way, using the same jokes, writing the same blogs, looking the same... It makes me yawn just thinking about it. Every individual is different, so we all have our different viewpoints of what is normal and what is not. Who's some fictional character to tell us what's normal? We can decide that for ourselves through our own experiences, thank you very much.
As for definition number four, define "mental disorder" for me. There are how many illnesses and disorders out there? Nobody is perfect, so again, nobody is "normal." I don't care what the definition(s) is (are). The "average intelligence" differs for different people (everybody) and what exact "intelligence" are we talking about when we just say "average intelligence?" Science? Math? Reading/Comprehension? Vocabulary? History? Music? Literature? Geography? Street smarts? Book smarts? The textbook definition doesn't say. It just says "average intelligence" and "free from mental disorder." Well, I'm proud to say I have my own set of norms, have well-above "average intelligence" and have epilepsy. So, there you go, I'm way out there according to the textbook definitions and you know what? That's alright with me.
1. Perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency.
2. According with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle; conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern.
3. Occurring naturally.
4. Of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development; free from mental disorder.
5. Having concentration of one gram equivalent of solute per liter; containing neither basic hydroxyl nor acid hydrogen; not associated; having a straight-chain structure.
6. Having the property that every coset produced by operating on the left by a given element is equal to the coset produced by operating on the right by the same element.
7. Relating to, involving, or being a normal curve or normal distribution.
8. Having the property of commutativity under multiplication by the transpose of the matrix each of whose elements is a conjugate complex number with respect to the corresponding element of the given matrix.
I'm going to concentrate on definitions 2 and 4:
2. According with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle; conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern.
and
4. Of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development; free from mental disorder.
Alright, so, conforming to norms that society imposes upon its citizens is basically what definition number two is stating. Okay, so, does every culture and civilization have their own definition of "normal?" Since they all have different norms? Or, is it a timeless universal phenomenon? If we still walked around like cavemen, then I could say it was timeless, but I don't know too many folk that do unless it's on Halloween, and even then, they are few and far between. Is it universal? Are all countries and their people the same? Believe the same? Think the same? No, okay, so it's not universal.
But, aren't norms constantly changing? How long ago was it "normal" to ask another, "Hey Buck, are you feeling gay today?" and when saying that, meant, "Are you feeling happy?" If you asked that today, it'd take on a completely different meaning and reaction from Buck. Clothing trends change by the day it seems. The norms in sports and in the entertainment world are ever-changing. So, what is normal? Is there such a thing? Do we base it upon a real-life person or a fictional character? If it's based on a real-life person, why did we pick him or her? And, since he or she has a unique gene make-up they can call their own, no one will be identical to them, so they will be the only "normal" specimen in the world. If we base it off a fictional character, then the only "normal" person to exist wouldn't truly exist at all. They'll just be a myth or a parable story for bosses and managers to tell their workers and players. So, why do we even have the word "normal," since, at the very most, one person in this world is, in fact, "normal"?
Is it to make the so-called outsiders feel awkward, and make them feel more at one by conforming to these ever-changing norms? Is it to take away from an individual's talents, gifts and beauties and mold them into who the leaders and authorities want them to be? Is it to be used as a label, so that people who consider themselves "normal" have others to point at and laugh about to make themselves feel more secure? Is it to be used as a way to make individuals feel insecure about themselves, some to the point of needing anti-depressants or other medications? Yes, there is a textbook definition, but there are eight of them, perhaps more. These definitions are vague, not telling a whole lot. Who is "normal?" Maybe Gumby, Mickey Mouse or Mario, but no real-life person, and we should all be proud of that. What would be fun about being "normal," anyway? Everyone walking the same way, talking the same way, using the same jokes, writing the same blogs, looking the same... It makes me yawn just thinking about it. Every individual is different, so we all have our different viewpoints of what is normal and what is not. Who's some fictional character to tell us what's normal? We can decide that for ourselves through our own experiences, thank you very much.
As for definition number four, define "mental disorder" for me. There are how many illnesses and disorders out there? Nobody is perfect, so again, nobody is "normal." I don't care what the definition(s) is (are). The "average intelligence" differs for different people (everybody) and what exact "intelligence" are we talking about when we just say "average intelligence?" Science? Math? Reading/Comprehension? Vocabulary? History? Music? Literature? Geography? Street smarts? Book smarts? The textbook definition doesn't say. It just says "average intelligence" and "free from mental disorder." Well, I'm proud to say I have my own set of norms, have well-above "average intelligence" and have epilepsy. So, there you go, I'm way out there according to the textbook definitions and you know what? That's alright with me.
Comments
Post a Comment