Tweet
Look back, to slavery, to suffrage, to integration and one thing is clear. Fashions in bigotry come and go. The right thing lasts.
Maybe it’s just me, but I see a failure to buy into the term “normal” when it comes to the human condition. I see failures in how some people build frameworks around “normal” for which the purpose is exclusion — and that has implications for civil rights movements.
Quite a number of the “us” in our broader, western societies draw circles around our “me,” defining oneself as “normal.” 
Then as an extension from that personal self-defined “normal” that’s found as one’s circle of “me,” I see many having a tendency to draw a slightly larger circle around that “me” that is only slightly larger than oneself, and declaring that slightly larger circle as what is “normal.”
Outside of that small circle of normal is where “different” is found, which sometimes is expressed as “abnormal” or “deviant, “bizarre,” “freakish,” and “aberrant.”
When those in our society — when even we ourselves — draw small circles of normal around ourselves, those “different” spaces outside the small circles of normal is where the unequal is found. Where unequal is found, so is, othering, harassment, and discrimination.
To be sure, we all discriminate. If we make purchases based on a preference for cabbage over lettuce, or cherries over grapes, we engage in discrimination. If we prefer potential partners based on a preference for those with long hair over those with short hair, or those who are taller than ourselves over those who shorter than ourselves, we engage in discrimination. Discrimination is part of life.
Yet in the marketplace of society, not all discrimination is legal. A business can discriminate in hiring someone based on their skills and qualifications, but, for example, it’s not legal to discriminate in hiring someone because of a someone’s ethnicity, sex, or disability status. In the United States, we have protected classes — small islands in the sea of “different.” These are islands that society has created to protect certain groups of people who’ve been discriminated against for reasons not involving their skills or qualifications.
And of course, one can be discriminated against not just for identifying as a member of a protected class, but for being perceived as a member of a protected class. For example, a dark-haired caucasian woman may be perceived as Latina is she has a deep tan; a man on crutches for a sprained knee may be perceived as disabled — one can be discriminated not just because of how one identifies oneself, but how others perceive one to be identified — with all of the requisite perceived negatives that of being a member of a particular protected minority class.
In the marketplace of society, the diversity is the model we use we create the legal framework for those small islands of protected classes. With great effort, freedom, equality, and justice for minority groups is won, and protected classes are carved out, based on the simple concept that people should be judged by their character, and not by factors such as ethnicity, gender, disability, or veteran’s status.
In the United States, we’ve seen in the creation of these protected classes a low, consistent movement for more expansive language. We didn’t create islands of protections just for African-Americans at the exclusion of Asian Americans, but saw laws wrote to protect on the basis of race and ethnicity. We didn’t create islands of protections for the those in wheelchairs to the exclusion of those with depression (or other mental health conditions), but created protections on the basis of disability.
We in the United States have slowly moved to legally limit how “different” is used to discriminate against people when the discrimination isn’t based on the character of individuals. But again, it’s taken great effort to protect the “different” in society.
The fight is never about grapes or lettuce. It is always about people.~Cesar Chavez
For the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community civil rights movement of the United States, we’re now seeking to create islands of protections not just for gay people, but create protections on the basis of sexual orientation — which creates protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, asexual, and heterosexual people. We’re now seeking to create islands of protections not just for transsexuals, but on the basis of gender identity and expression — which creates protections for transsexual, cross-dressing, genderqueer, agender, people, as well as for effeminate males and masculine women. We, as a civil rights movement, seek to create the largest islands of protection for our community members, because, Adam Clayton Powell Jr. stated:
Unless man is committed to the belief that all mankind are his brothers, then he labors in vain and hypocritically in the vineyards of equality.
Drawing small circles of normal gets in the way of creating the largest islands of protections that advantage those who are deemed “different” or “abnormal”; the drawing small circles of normal around ourselves is a way to look for differences that is inconsistent with seeing all of humanity as our siblings in humankind — our siblings that deserve freedom, equality, and justice.
In other words, drawing small circles of normal is the wrong thing; creating large islands of protections for minority populations that are treated as unequal with others in broader society for reasons other that personal character is the right thing — and the right thing will last.
8 Comments
Widening the Notion of Normal Benefits EveryoneI remember having conversations 25 years ago with a friend who was out to me in which we discussed how the gay liberation struggle would, in time, help every post-pubescent teenager be comfortable with themselves. Expectations that center on sexuality are a driving force for teens and anything that helps teens feel “normal” whether they be gay or straight, or different in their stage of development or just generally feeling at odds with their bodies, can only result in young adults that feel strong about who they are and comfortable with others. The benefits of this feeling will just flow outward into every sphere of existence.
There is no doubt in my mind that all of society will benefit from the struggle by the LGBT community for Civil Rights and the eventual settling on a much broader concept of normal.
Thanks for the thoughtful post.
Normal has value, too.Expanding the legal definition of “normal” is not necessarily a good thing.
For one thing, discriminating on the basis of behavior makes good sense a lot of the time.
Freedom of association goes both ways – to be with who you want, and to avoid being around those you don’t want to be. It is human nature to resist being forced to do anything, and you can’t legislate love, kindness, or acceptance.
Many of the community battles should be for people’s hearts, and their minds, not their legislators.
I don’t want to redefine normal……I want to get rid of the whole concept of “normal” and “abnormal” as a basis for human rights.
The concept of normalacy doesn’t fix inequalities; it doesn’t foster freedom, equality, and justice.
The diversity model does foster freedom, equality, and justice.
My poor nephewI remember visiting my sister’s house a few years ago, and my nephew spent the first three days I was there strangely quiet. Finally, he found me in the backyard, alone, and he asked the question that had been eating him alive for weeks.
He’d diddled around a bit with one of his friends. Was he now gay? It took just about everything I had not to laugh, because I could see by how anxiety-ridden he was that this was deadly serious to him. Laughing wouldn’t have been an optimal approach.
No, I explained, it didn’t mean that. It’s normal for young men (he was 12, so he would have resented being called a boy) to experiment. They get urges, and girls typically aren’t available at that age. Certainly if the feelings continued, that might mean something in a few years, but right now all it meant was he was horny, curious, and so was his friend. And, really, nothing to worry about either way. He latched onto that and said he felt better.
Later, I felt worse. For many reasons. What if being gay wasn’t seen as a horrible fate? What if information was available to kids, so they knew how broad the range of “normal” really is? My sister is no bigot, and she hasn’t raised her kids to be bigots, but they soak this stuff up from everywhere. I think we live in a very sick, very repressed culture, in too many ways.
Who has the Ring?Creating circles of normalcy is just bad on so many levels.
One problem is the creation of an “in-group verses outsiders” mentality, something that appears to be completely natural for social animals but also something we can avoid if we learn how (or teach our culture’s children to do so).
But there is power in having a group of ‘outsiders’. It solidifies the in-group. It allows the group’s leader (if one exists) to make decisions often unquestioned. Damaging and limiting the potential of those both within and without, it tends to be safe and stable.
But there is another aspect to circles of normalcy that hurts us in a completely different way. It fosters apathy based on incrementalism when applied within an alliance such as LGBTQII. As each subculture gains “just enough” privilege, they pull out of the fight out of fear of losing what they have. The circle of Normal moves out one level as assimilation progresses.
ONE OF MY FAVORITE QUOTES:
It seems inevitable people will always have conceptions of what is normal, and invariably of what is then construed as abnormal. Every little aspect of our physical, emotional and spiritual being is on a continuum. Nothing is either this or that. It is what appears to happen the most on each continuum that typically gets the label of normal, while that which is happening at the extremes becomes thought of as different (abnormal). It becomes the true test of a society in how it approaches those things seen as different. The society makes the choices of what belongs and what doesn’t. We see this happening all the time. I think a successful, healthy society is one that learns how to accept those things perceived as differences and thereby truly evolves. A society that falls is one that fails to accept and protect those who are different.
You missed somethingWhat’s missing from your essay is that we create our circles of protection because discrimination against people within the circle is pervasive within the culture, damaging to the lives of people within the circle, and considered unjustified within the principles of this country and it’s laws. Yes, we create circles of protection, but you left out why. The circles are first defined by discrimination. We don’t define the circles first. We don’t say, “Ya know, Harry Potter fans really should be protected from discrimination because it’s wrong to discriminate based on your personal favorite literature,” and then make them a protected class. There would first need to be wide spread discrimination against Harry Potter fans immersed in the culture. Harry Potter fans would have to face wide spread unemployment, acts of violence, denial of civil liberties, etc. The would have to live closeted lives. They would have to have secret book clubs. They would have to live in fear of being outed as liking Harry Potter. It would have to be easily demonstrated that the persecution they face would be for being fans of Harry Potter. Only then might government step in and make them a protected class. The discrimination defined the island. Government protections just puts razor wire on the beaches and pillboxes on the hills.
There are all kinds of little classes of people who face discrimination of some kind in our culture that do not quite rise to the level of the discrimination being wide spread, pervasive, and so damaging to their lives as to warrant protections. People are discriminated based on height, weight, attractiveness, regional accent, hair style, tattoos, clothing, personality, etc. People are discriminated against based on devotion to sports teams. People are certainly discriminated against based on political party affiliation. People experience discrimination because of where they live, how much they make, and what kind of car they drive.
These kinds of discrimination routinely occur every day in situations in which they are completely inappropriate. Yet, we’re not quite willing or perhaps even able to make them protected classes. The discrimination is subtle and not so pervasive as to be plainly visible. People experiencing it do not identify with the quality for which they are discriminated. It’s not so wide spread as to be highly damaging to the quality of their lives. If you were just drawing circles that deserve protection, you might draw circles around some of those qualities I mentioned. We don’t do that. The discrimination comes first, the protection comes later. Much later.
Since we are only about 50 years into this process of protecting minorities from oppressive discrimination, we as a nation have not yet figured out what to do when the protections are no longer necessary. If the hope of integration is realized and MLK’s dream is made real, the discrimination will evaporate and the protections become a useless derelict of a by-gone age. Once upon a time in this country, Irish people faced severe discrimination. If such laws were being written back then, they would certainly be deserving of such protection. Today, most Americans don’t even realize that such discrimination ever occurred. If they had written laws 150 years ago to specifically protect the Irish, what would they do with those laws today?