“The only normal people are the ones you don’t know very well.”
-Alfred Adler
Do you remember the first time you heard another person utter the phrase “the new normal?” Maybe you do; maybe you marked it down on a calendar or some other sort of record-keeping device in order to commemorate the occasion. Maybe you recognized the significance of what was occuring, and the developments that it could potentially foster in the world. Or maybe you didn’t notice it at all. Maybe it took you several days, or longer, to realize that this phrase was suddenly popping up everywhere. I suppose that could be forgiven, under the right circumstances.
The choice of the word “normal” always stood out, to me at least, because I became aware of both the power and the illusory nature of this word during my own teenage years. I discovered at that time in my life that “normal” is a word that is used, most often, to occupy and promote positions that would otherwise be indefensible. It always struck me as a feeble attempt to assert dominance when shaky logic had failed, or the person using the word already knew their position was too weak to withstand an argument against it. I’m certain you could comb through your own memories to find examples of this, but here’s a few: “normal” people do this; “normal” people don’t do that; it’s “normal” to feel this way; it’s not “normal” to feel that way.
If you are reading this, then at some point in your life, you have been on either the giving and/or receiving end of this social pressure. And we typically begin learning this lesson at a very young age, starting with our families and then kicking into a higher gear when formal education begins. Any perceived separation of public and private schooling is irrelevant in this context because this social pressure exists in both. Indeed, it can be found in most(if not all) human endeavors that involve at least two individuals.
“Normal” is one of those words that, when invoked, pre-supposes an air of “authority” to the speaker. After all, we all know what “normal” means, right? We see it and live it and interact with it every day. But do any of us really understand exactly what it means, or do we just think that we know? How many times a day, in the course of your mundane interactions with the world, do you use the word “normal?” Do you even pay any attention to it? Or do you just let it slip from your lips with the same nonchalance as other absurdly over-used terms like “love,” “perfect,” or “beautiful?” I have to admit that I am as guilty of this liguistical hubris as anyone else, but I do try to pay attention.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language(5th Edition) defines “normal” as:
1) adj. — conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level or type; typical
2) in Biology adj. — functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies
This all appears very straight-forward and in line with what we can all potentially agree upon. However, if we keep reading the definition, beyond it’s uses specific to disciplines like mathematics and chemistry, we find:
5) a) adj. — relating to or characterized by average intelligence or development
b) adj. — free from mental illness; sane (emphasis mine)
Wait a minute… what was that? I could swear that the implication is being made that the ability or inability to conform to societal “standards” or accepted “patterns” of behavior are being equated with the exact level of an individual’s mental stability. But maybe I’m just misreading it…
As for me, I don’t remember the exact date that I first encountered this phrase. I know that it occurred sometime during the halcyon days of March 2020, but if you were to put a gun against my skull and demand a specific date in order to mitigate the trigger squeeze, you would be forced to waste a bullet. That was the approximate first time I can recollect hearing this phrase issue from another human’s voice box. It stands out in my memory because it might as well have been the issuance from a steel cylinder. And as alarm bells began to ring out from the corners of my own mind, the question that I remember presenting itself at that moment was: “what the hell kind of Orwellian Newspeak is this?” As it turns out, we were all about to find out.
As Americans, we are taught to believe(there’s that word again) from a very young age that our vote is equivalent to our voice; that the ballot box is allegedly equal to the pitchfork and the torch, albeit far more “civilized.” We are presented with the visages and quotations of “experts” who collectively appear to profess the altruism of the democratic process on a daily basis. We are instructed that “progress” can be measured by the data sets that are uplifted by this process, and that the “greater good” is a noble ideal for all to work toward. And we are directed to believe that all of this taken together is “normal.” And it always sounds like something you should want to be a part of, right?
Constitutionalists believe in the “greater good.” As do Socialists. As do Communists. This apparent “belief” being that the sacrifices of the few should be considered justified because they facilitate the benefit of the many; in other words, that the capitulation of the individual is necessary to achieve the ideal of a better world for all. This is clearly a utopian delusion, as can be easily recognized whenever potential negative consequences are downplayed, or hidden outright, in order to advance the agenda du jour. And if you have ever personally traveled the road to Hell, then you already know what these touchstones actually look like. But if it is truly all for the “greater good,” then there should be a point where Constitutional “normal,” Social “normal” and Communal “normal” would begin to agree with one another more than they disagree, shouldn’t there?
Likewise, the claim can also be made of Fascists. Although, I would argue that Fascists would more likely fall into a “common good” category; which itself is altogether different from the “greater good” in that “common” in this system refers only to the subjects being governed, not the ones actually perpetrating the governing. This is the lesson that I have chosen to take from history about Fascism. You may have had a different education on this subject, depending upon where and when you were indoctrinated… and by whom.
(As an aside: I am well aware that there are a multitude of political ideologies currently present in these still somewhat United States. However, the current situation reveals that the plurality is being violently shouted down by a vehement, sociopathic minority. And this seems to be acceptable to the plurality, at least for the time being. When or if that changes, then I will start paying attention to those other voices.)
When we begin to apply this notion to a study of our history, we inevitably stumble across instances of great atrocity that have been committed under the guise of “normality” and the “greater good” or “common good.” The subjugation, enslavement, and violation of the many tribes of old Europe was viewed as “normal” by the native citizens of the Roman Empire. The practice of observing and reporting suspicious behavior that could potentially lead to the harm of the republic was considered “normal” in 1930’s Germany(and indeed, even more so if those identified were also engaged in questionable religious behavior). Even the arrest, incarceration, and sanctioned slavery of those individuals purported to pose a threat to the state was eventually considered “normal” in the Soviet Union. Do we even need to talk about China for further proof?
What this should expose for all of us to see is that these concepts like “normal” and the “greater good” are no more concrete than the widely held delusion of “authority.” They are all empty buckets we are supposed to believe are full of water. The definition of the word “normal” itself is as transitory as the desires of the mob that seeks to manifest that word into reality. In practice, it quickly becomes impossible to deny that, because differences exist in the modes that individuals use to make sense of the world around them, what may be professed as “normal” and acceptable for one person or group can be viewed as completely abnormal and oppressive for any other person or group. It appears that this consideration alone severely damages the viability of the “greater good,” if not nullifying it completely.
This new “normal” that we are being collectively indoctrinated to accept stands in direct opposition to the ideas and concepts that the vast majority of the population have utilized to provide balance and consistency for their own lives and families for decades and longer. In effect, this campaign has taken what we thought we knew and turned it upside down, inverting the values and “beliefs” of more people than you may realize. A shifting of mass perception on this grand of a scale will have consequences, to be sure. Some of those consequences are already beginning to surface as alterations in human behavior, both individually as well as collectively. Some of them may not become apparent for generations.
“Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”
-H.L. Mencken
So what is “normal,” exactly? From my experience, it seems to be the ideas and behaviors that we individually wish to see manifest in our environment, regardless of any unforeseen aftereffects or deleterious consequences. “Normal” people want you to be just like them, believe what they believe(however ridiculous or psychotic it may be), and do as they do. They want you to go along so that they can get along, paying no attention to the wreckage strewn in their wake. In other words: “don’t think about it, just submit; that will make it easier for everyone.” But, if approached in a one-on-one situation without the undue influence of peer pressure, how many of us would be willing to profess this on our own?
It appears to me that “normal” has now become synonymous with insanity, which obviously invalidates one of its own definitions (according to the American Heritage dictionary). Perhaps this was always the intent — to keep the general population in a state of imbalance, unease(dis-ease?), apprehension and anxiety. Much like a giant cattle prod being thrust at the collective backsides of the American herd. Regardless, where we actually find ourselves is not so much a new “normal” as it is a new “upside-down;” that space where the illogical is demonstrated to be logic, and the reasonable person is presented to the masses as a lunatic.
Again, though it shouldn’t need stating, this is the picture that I view through the lens I have constructed; your results may vary. Maybe it’s just because I was born in the 1970’s, but the old upside-down seemed to be a lot more fun.
