Exploratory rant

[cdybedahl]

In another entry, brandnewgun wrote this:

However, I know plenty of LGBT people who really, passionately cannot abide the word "queer" (much as I hate "gay woman"). They think it says they aren't normal (which, yes. That's the point!) so, as an activist, I don't use it. I don't use it for people I don't know are cool with it. (Also, to me, queer describes my politics, and the "we're as normal as you" people don't share my queer politics, I guess.)

Since I'm about to veer off the topic of that entry, I'm writing here instead. Because that bit touches on something that's nagged me for a long time. The concept of "normal". What is it, really? Who is "normal"? What does it mean, and why is it (mostly) precieved as a desirable thing to be?

dictionary.com has this to say about the word:

1. Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.
   
2. Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.
3. Abbr. n or N Chemistry.
   
   
   
   1. Designating a solution having one gram equivalent weight of solute per liter of solution.
   2. Designating an aliphatic hydrocarbon having a straight and unbranched chain of carbon atoms.
   
   
   
   
4. Mathematics.
   
   
   
   1. Being at right angles; perpendicular.
   2. Perpendicular to the direction of a tangent line to a curve or a tangent plane to a surface.
   
   
   
   
5. 
   
   
   
   1. Relating to or characterized by average intelligence or development.
   2. Free from mental illness; sane.
   
   
   
   

In the context of people, we can leave out the meanings from chemistry and mathematics. The rest is, I think, a fair representation of how the word is usually used and what it's mostly taken to mean.

So let's pick out two of the stated meanings: Conforming with a norm and lacking observable deficiencies.

Interesting combo, isn't it? If you're not normal, that is, if you don't conform to the norm, then you're not normal, that is, you have observable deficiencies. Conform, or you are deficient.

In the quote above, it appears to me that Kate uses the word "normal" in the first sense. She uses the term "queer" to point out that whoever or whatever she applies it to doesn't conform to the norm, that it isn't normal. The people who want to be considered normal most likely use it in the other sense; they don't want to be considered deficient. And if you ask me, they're both right. Kate's right, because in current Western society same-gender sexual relationships aren't included in the norm. They're not normal, in that sense. At the same time, such relationships aren't deficient. So in the other sense of the word, they are normal.

So the problem isn't really that some people want something to be considered normal and that some other people don't want it to be so considered, the problem is that the word itself is suffering from multiple personality disorder.

Now, words don't exist in a vacuum. They have no existence, no meaning, outside the realm of human interaction (let's disregard space aliens and marketers for the time being). So if a word suffers from a division of meaning, this points to a division among humans. And in this case, it seems to be fairly easy to locate the point of division: some people consider not conforming to the norm to be a deficiency. Furthermore, since being "normal" is traditionally considered a good thing, we can surmise that the people who find non-conformity to be deficient have been the ones who have traditionally decided what is to be considered good and bad, and that they are now losing that control. And, of course, the people who know that they don't conform to the norm will be the first to redefine the word, either so that it no longer has the meaning of required conformity or so that it is no longer considered good. Since the most numerous and most vocal such groups largely consist of the young, teenage rebellion makes it likely that the not-good re-interpretation will win.

And then we get a severe mismatch between the approving "You're not normal, mate!" and the not-so-good "The doctor says that your test results are not normal"...

Comments

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

Can I just say how much I'm enjoying the debate I inadvertently provoked?

Well, a bit of yes, and a bit of no. It's partly a "Yes, not average" but also, partly a direct confrontation to the notion of "deficient". It challenges the system that judges deficiency, I think.

[cdybedahl.livejournal.com]

Do you mean the notion of same-gender sexuality as deficient, the notion of human beings as deficient or the notion of deficiency in its widest sense? Because, in my opinion, the first one deserves all the challenge it can get, the second deserves a lot more thinking about and the last one would be plain silly.