Standard vs. Typical

Those are two words I saw when I looked up the dictionary definition of "normal."

Typical implies average or common. But standard implies something else: an ideal that all are expected to strive for. And this ideal is not necessarily what's typical or common, it's what the culture values. And what the culture values is what the powerful find useful to themselves.

Typical children are not necessarily taught that they are fine and perfect as they are. They are taught to meet the standard, the ideal.

Most people will deny that they are typical. Most people consider themselves "better than average" at driving and moral character, which by the definition of average is impossible. If you hang out on Myers-Briggs personality type communities, almost everyone claims to be one of the "rare" introverted intuitive types, and they disdain the allegedly common/average Sensate types.

If you're already a normal person, then normal is not considered a good thing to be. You're supposed to be better than normal; standard, but not typical; exemplifying the traits that are valued within your culture or subculture.

But if you're considered culturally undesirable - not only shy of the standard, but not even very close to typical - then "normal" is billed as a good thing to be. If there's any shot of force-fitting you into typicality, you are strongly encouraged (or if you're a child, perhaps forced) to try it. And if there is no shot at even mere Typicality, never mind the elusive Standard - then oftentimes you are not even considered a sentient being worthy of basic rights, from what I've been reading.

My boyfriend seems to have gotten both messages about normal - that it's best to be atypical in a sense of being "above" average (of course, what's "above" and what's "below" are not absolutes but are defined by the cultural standards), but that it's also desirable to conform to many typical behaviors as much as you realistically can. This is probably true of many of the milder Aspies and other people who have been at least typical in some areas and notably "less than" typical (or markedly deviant from typical in a way that diverges from the ideal Standard) in others. It may have been true of me in my earlier years as well, but after absorbing enough influences from subcultures where certain standards such as beauty and popular interests are disdained as unworthy while the standards of the mind and certain kinds of "uniqueness" are exalted, I almost exclusively associate "normal" with "typical" and see it as a bad thing. (When I'm not philosophizing about it, that is.)

The "normal" that needs to be reformed is the nature of the standards and how the standards are used to essentially dictate who's human and who's not. A society that fails to find value in people with certain types of disabilities is a profoundly uncreative society, not one that follows any kind of inevitable law of nature. Yes, there is something in human nature that facilitates ostracism, exclusion, and dehumanization, but there is also something that facilitates creativity and cooperation. It would be no less natural to relax the standards and look for a place for everyone than to try to push people as close to the standards as possible or else leave them to die and be physically, sexually, and emotionally abused in institutions.

The Illustrious and Mythical Order of Being

I've been reading a lot about disability rights abuses lately, especially in the following locations:

http://thiswayoflife.org/blog/?p=222
http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/?p=443
http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/?p=97

It does seem ridiculous to violate human rights under any circumstances. But it also begs some deep thought about beingness and the basis by which we assign rights. What does it mean to be human? Who gets to decide who and what deserves rights? If I think it's wrong to violate the human rights of people who are unable to communicate or use bathrooms even as adults, then am I not a hypocrite for not being Vegan and fiercely anti-abortion? For if it's hard to tell whether humans are sentient or not and to what degree based on their outward behaviors, couldn't all the animals I like to eat be just as sentient as some humans? And even though embryos can't communicate or breathe or eat independently yet, there's a better chance than not that they will be able to if they are allowed to survive to birth if they can, right?

Every attempt to find some intellectual or physical quality - besides the small portion of the human genome that differs from that of chimpanzees, and the closed breeding circle that defines a distinct species - that "makes us human" has pretty much fallen by the wayside. Complex communication (language), self-awareness, awareness of death and dying, high intelligence, and tool usage have all been found in other animals. So what have people done? They've simply narrowed the meaning of these in order to try to make them human-exclusive again. "Okay, other animals may have complex communication, but it's not language because it doesn't have all the features of human language." (Okay the, are plants not living because they don't have all the features of animal life? Some Buddhist philosophers have traditionally thought so, but modern biology says otherwise.) Or "They use tools, but they're not nearly as inventive as human tools are." Or "They may be able to recognize and seemingly mourn their own dead, but they probably can't anticipate death and dying quite the way we do."

And it isn't just animals whom we've sought ways to exclude and define as a "them," it's also other humans. Humans who were female, from other tribes/ethnicities/nationalities (especially tribes/ethnicities/nationalities unrelated to yours or with which yours waged war), from lower social classes, disabled, or "different" in any way that the society deemed repulsive have all, at some time and place (and sometimes even now), been considered to be a kind of non-human. That is, a "them" who are unworthy of full human rights.

So there's no obvious, undisputable place to draw these kinds of us vs. them lines.

Right now, I practically don't believe in "orders of being" anymore. I don't believe in evolution as a march of progress; it's just a matter of living things stumbling into new niches in an ever-changing biosphere. I don't believe that intelligence is either (a) accurately measurable via any single thing like test scores or academic ability or articulateness in communication or (b) an indication of a higher consciousness or order of being, although I used to strongly believe both of those things and always fear that I was not smart enough and thus not a high enough being. Emotionally, I'm still not over that belief: I still automatically envy people I perceive as "geniuses" or otherwise "smarter than I am" (e.g., people who skipped grades in school) and fear being "stupid" or inadequate before I have a chance to come to my senses.

Since I know how damaging the concept of intelligence as an easy measure of one's "order of being" can be via my direct experience with adopting that concept and beating myself down with it even though almost nobody other than myself has ever called me "stupid," I think it's something that ought to go. "Lack of intelligence" should never be used as an excuse for treating people like throw-away toys. And I don't even like the idea of making fun of people who aren't very interested or talented in so called "intellectual" realms, because there's really no reason to think of them any differently than you'd think of anyone else who just doesn't share your interests or just isn't on your wavelength. Even when aspies do it to the NTs who have discriminated against them, it's still not cool, because it continues to promote this idolization of the "intellect," which I think is in large part socially constructed anyway. (What is considered "intellectual" and why? Is the brain not also in charge of various practical skills and motor skills as well as reading, writing, and arithmetic?)

I don't think we need the amount of competition and hurt and egotism that's perpetuated by the notion of higher and lower orders of being, particularly within the human race. I'm tired of matters of consciousness, sentience, intelligence, and order of being not only being used to promote atrocities, but also inadvertently making even those of us who are as normal as the wall is to the floor feel bad about ourselves and anxious about not being valuable enough due to the quality of our "intellect." I'm not ready to be a Vegan, an anti-abortionist (though I think abortion should be minimized, done as early as possible, and not done eugenically), or a political organizer, at least not yet, but I want to challenge "order of being" assumptions as applied within the population of born members of the human race where and when I see them, especially in myself. I think there's a lot of room for improvement within my own life as I come to believe in a more heartfelt way that human beings are human beings no matter what they do. Yes, even criminals. Defense measures should be taken against them as needed, and if they try to kill you then it's not unethical to kill them in self-defense, but beyond that, well...they're not much different from the rest of us, and systematic indignities on the order of the Stanford Prison Experiment are not necessary to maintain our safety and community integrity.

"I Wish I Were Special"

I read this movie review of "Ratatouille" (a movie I have not seen) one day, which included a blurb about "The Incredibles," a movie I had seen:

"He [Bird, the director] communicates an idea that all people are not necessarily created equal in regards to the things they may naturally be good at (indeed, they may each be naturally good at different things). The Incredibles showed this by contrasting the superheroes' amazing and varying inborn abilities against those of its villain, Syndrome. He had no super powers but wanted to become a superhero; bitterness at not being able to accept not having powers leads him to become a villain."

I also read somewhere that day that it was typical in stories for special people to want to be normal, and normal people to want to be special.

Now, Syndrome may not have had superpowers, but he had a talent that, I would say, surpassed those of any superhero: he was a genius engineer, building machinery that mimicked superpowers since he was just a child. As a young adult, he'd managed, with funding from the government, to design a robo-monster so powerful that it could kill any individual superhero that dared challenge it...but, as the good guys must always win in those family films, not a whole team of them such as the Incredible family.

I've been a little bit like the young Syndrome when it came to my attitude toward autistics, especially the so-called "high functioning" ones (though my readings of neurodiversity sites and blogs indicate that functioning levels are an iffy concept, as the abilities of individual autistics shift and drift over time. My boyfriend has experienced some changes - generally towards the NT simulation direction, gaining some sociability and losing some intensity of focus, according to his own self-reports.) Autistic people often have incredible focus, sometimes to the point of savant skills, and an unusual and precise way of seeing the world. They also have the status of being "unique" in a socially recognized and substantial way. Since I'm already not the most charming and sociable person in the world anyway, and already have analytical tendencies, I've sometimes wished I were autistic, so I could gain the "superpowers" without losing all that much in the way of traditional non-autistic strengths 'cause I didn't have that much of them anyway. (Of course, I assumed then that non-autistic strengths were primarily in the social realm. Not until my recent long discussions about emotionally charged issues with my Aspie BF did I realize that there were other non-autistic strengths that I did have in reasonable quantities, and I'm thinking now that I would in fact like to keep them.) I've also lamented being "normal" in general, equating it to ordinary, redundant, and ultimately valueless. Even as a kid, I used to complain that I wished I were a genius.

Over time, my envy of autism has faded (although it was on and off for a while and could relapse for all I know), but every now and then I still wish I were special and lament my ordinariness.

But it goes to show how the proverbial grass is always greener when I hear my boyfriend talking about how he does things or would consider doing things because he wants to be "normal" and to "beat the Asperger's." Apparently he values the social acceptance of fitting in, and coming from a rather conservative religious background, he hasn't had the kind of exposure I've had to the glorification of uniqueness and difference and "being yourself." Or if he has had it, then it didn't hit him during that critical imprinting phase in his life (childhood and early adolescence). He often thinks of the world quite directly in terms of concepts, ideas, rules, and people he knew then, and modifies these templates as soon as he gets enough input to do so. This may be a version of the autistic tendency to memorize whole patterns in detail and use them as thought-elements. Anything or anyone that deviates strongly enough from these early patterns is "weird" or "unlike anything he's every seen before."

So it's just like in the stories: the normal person wants to be special and the special person wants to be normal.

So what's the point of normal people - those of us who are close enough to the averages and stereotypes that we can hide under them with relatively little effort?

I don't know. But just because I don't know, doesn't mean that normal people are redunant or worthless. I'm reminded of my little epiphany when I read something - linked from ballastexistenz at the time, I think, though I can no longer find the link there - written by a Down Syndrome self-advocate. She wrote something clear, sentient, and meaningful. I would not judge this person to be worthless or a lesser being. Yet, if anyone is likely to be judged as a lesser being by peole in general, it's someone like her: a "retarded person," physically and cognitively different, or at least you'd probably be able to tell as much in person. So if it would be clearly mistaken to dismiss as a lesser being the "kind" of person who is "normally" dismissed as a lesser being, isn't it also mistaken to dismiss myself as such? How do I know I'm redundant, or valueless? Maybe I haven't come into my own yet. Maybe the concept of value itself is suspect. In any case, if I really want to honor basic human dignity, I'm going to have to honor myself, not reserve for myself - and especially not for "people like me," as they've done nothing to deserve it - some distinguished class of unworthiness.

I wonder what Syndrome could have been like if he'd accepted himself as he was, and actually worked together with or peacefully coexisted with superheroes rather than envying them and wanting to destroy them and take over their niche and outdo them. Could he have used his engineering skills to solve the energy crisis? To build specialized armor for superheroes faced with especially tough villains?