What is normality? Most would simply assume that normality is the state of the ordinary and so this question deserves being answered in significantly more detail. Normality is simply ethnocracy, namely subconsciously involuntary ethnic cultural norms whether of one’s own ethnic group or of another ethnic group.
Normality is the notion that cultural hegemony is the way things should be. Normality is the notion that social exceptions confirm the ethnocratic rule. Normality is the idea that ethnocratic culture is somehow mystically “natural”. Normality may thus be described as simply the naturalistic fallacy, namely that the notion of culture being nature.
This opens up an interesting avenue since the conception of normality exceeds the culture/nature binary. This has a long historical trajectory in Western culture in assuming that Western ethnocratic patriarchy is somehow special and chosen in nature.
Normality is thus a perfect example of reflexive performativity, namely “I do this because others do and ergo this is right”. There is apparently no need for further elaboration other than reinforcing the pervasive structural oppression of ethnocratic patriarchy.
The term “normality” is thus simply as the term “culture” a synonym for structural oppression. Of course both terms exceed structural oppression in not being limited to structural oppression yet both terms fully capture human structural oppression generally whether economic, social or statist. Gender misbehavior is part of normality as is eating animal products and are indeed habitual structurally oppressive behavior of every kind such as discrimination, silencing, othering etc.
We need thus no less than discredit the very notion of normality as a form of structural oppression. In fact the nefarious and seemingly “neutral” notion of normality is anything but neutral but rather underpins virtually all forms of structural oppression. This is the very notion that you are entitled to misbehave towards others due to this generally being sanctioned by the culture in which you socially interact. Normality is thus the general and usual justification for structural oppression.
What if we were to say that we do not need normality? What if we were to redesign not only our individual social roles but also our very own individual cognitive perceptions? This would not be as a religious or pseudo-religious self-therapy but rather as a kind of artistic feminist self-engineering whereby we would reject the structurally oppressive implicit assumptions of “normality”, a.k.a. so called “culture”.
“Religion” and self-help methods in Western society essentially assume that we must constantly “morally improve ourselves” against ourselves so to speak. But what if there is an easier way of reengineering of neurological automatization (behavioral habits and habitual psychological reactions) by means of in actual practice simply refusing to perform the very farce that is ethnocratic patriarchy?
What if we were to become less reverent of culture? What if we were to acknowledge that culture is simply yet another shibboleth of structural oppression/discrimination, indeed a mass psychological rationale in upholding, performing and perpetuating structural oppression? Yet this requires selectivity, namely being able to deconstruct one’s own culture and even one’s own participation in a particular social context.
Culture is in contemporary parlance essentially described as if it were a splendid palace while it is in fact rather a behavioral prison of mass psychology inhibiting our behaviors in ways that are largely but not exclusively irrational in causing tremendous psychological discomfort of cognitive dissonance.
This leads us to the question of rationalism, namely the limits of reason whereby behavioral logic at some point leads to dyslogics. That is surely the crux of culture, namely nominal reason that leads to unreason, nominal good that leads to evil and logic that leads to dyslogic.
What is at play here is the semiotically erectile nature of phallogocentrism, namely when firmness becomes irrational rigidity. In fact is coitus for the penetrator typically a temporary state of unreason where rigidity trumps any other logic and so carno-phallogocentric rigidity of normality is thus a sublimation of structurally repressed unsatisfied desire for coitus on the part of sexually deprived males.
How then transform these bizarre structures underlying patriarchy? We need not only question underlying discursive assumptions but also help persons behaviorally break out from those very implicit and often subconscious assumptions. Rather than merely complaining about structural misbehaviors need we re-understand those very behaviors by means of intersectional social science and help transform those very behaviors by means of fully voluntary, yet also fully funded feminist intersectional Social Behavioral Therapy (SBT) indeed.
The Eurolect – Politics of the Para-Christian documentation project