Existence of Normalcy

    Normalcy is spoken about as gospel in contemporary America. It is the most expected and accepted form of living. Anything outside that normalcy is painted with a black brush, camouflaged into the shadows. After reading Trouble with Normal by Michael Warner, it furthered my belief that those not on one side of the extreme or the other get drowned out. The psychological factors of this tend to be related to the cognitive decision-making processes a person goes through. There are two main factors in decision-making. The first is a person's emotions while the other is society. Emotional factors can be related to a person's internal dialogue and impulses. A minor example would be feeling sad and deciding to have some ice cream to help you feel better. A minor example of a societal factor would be feeling sad and being told to not cry because it looks bad. 

    The relation here is the 'stigmaphile' vs 'stigmaphobe' discussion from the book. Both of these groups experience the influence of these factors in different ways. Warner quotes Erving Goffman to describe these two groups. A stigmaphile is one who joins with others who experience stigma and try to fight against it. A stigmaphobe is someone who conforms to normalcy (the best they can) out of fear of the stigma itself (Warner, p. 43).  Those in the stigmaphile group will most likely be influenced by their emotional factors. They go against society very blatantly. They will be the 'most radical' in their arguments against normalcy. A stigmaphobe is generally more affected by society. They feel pressured to look and act a certain way. The fear they have is more based on the retaliation they may get from the society around them. Both of these views overlap. It is an ever-changing wave between the two. Neither group is inherently wrong. They are both just trying to survive in a world that preaches 'normal', but what even is normal?

    Normalcy looks different to everyone. Warner explains in further depth that normal is not a truly meaningful term. Normal to Jane Doe may not be normal for John Buck. The closest thing to normal would be considered a dynamic family unit, who is white, with two kids, living in an upper-middle-class home. The majority of America is no longer that. A person could use the 'majority' definition of normal, but would it be based solely on one attribute? Normalcy, in essence, doesn't truly exist. Queer people should be able to have risque magazines and informational newspapers existing in the same realms as everything else. Instead of the two extremes fighting against each other, they need to find a common middle ground. This will help create a higher political and social impact in the future. 

Warner, M. (2003). Chapter Two: What's Wrong With Normal. In The trouble with normal: Sex, politics, and the ethics of Queer Life (pp. 41–80). essay, Harvard University Press.