The Standard Deviation

So I was attempting to interpret some boring logs (double entendre) that I brought home but could barely understand them, so I decided to write a blog post instead.

"Normal" and "deviant." Pretty standard debate. What is normal right? Well, focusing on the concept of common "deviations" first, we can assign a normal distribution to certain social norms, or social behavior norms. This includes gender roles, ethnic identity, political leanings, sexual orientation, intelligence quotient (let's just assume that the IQ measuring system works for the purposes of this post). Because of the negative connotation of the word "deviant," I'll focus on the supposedly negative ends of the spectrum-the mentally retarded, the poor, the homo/bisexuals.

There may be more scientific terms for these things, but basically what I want to discuss is the theory that telling someone enough times that they are abnormal-a deviant-leads to "abnormal" and "deviant" behaviour. Like victims of domestic violence who no longer know how to function when they are removed from that environment, the manner in which individuals are raised obviously influences their behaviour. Kick someone enough times and they will go down. When people are forbidden from doing things in public, they will find ways to do them in private if they want to, but along the way will be presented with the opportunity to try things that extend beyond anything they originally intended. Homosexuality for example, and the underworlds that exist is some parts of the world (the US included) that some members of society are forced to become a part of, but which they had not had an intention of joining.

Then there is the issue of human talents and capabilities. While there certainly are limits to what we each can achieve (don't argue with me that there aren't, because there are-sorry), the power of positive thought and a supportive environment can do wonders. Abused children, for example, are less likely to succeed. I think this one is pretty obvious. Parents should challenge their children in a stimulating manner, but a rigid upbringing according to a set standard or list of rules stifles individual growth and creativity. Praise to those who can play beautiful symphonies, but there is a difference between successfully replicating the work of another and creating work of one's own, work that represents that individual and his or her view on the world.

Of course, some people use adversity to their advantage. This plays out better in some cases than others, but can partially explain some of the stereotypical "fabulousness" or "bling" associated with certain groups, a show-like ostentatiousness that proclaims, "If you think I'm inferior, screw you I'll do it better than you." While I think in some cases this is too readily apparent (nouveau riche), for the most part it's better than succombing to that yoke of inferiority society seeks to impart. Yes, spite again. How I love spite.

In terms of sexual deviation, I wanted to note that an old friend of mine and I long ago were discussing the pity we feel for pedophiles, cannibals, and other such people for whom we could never condone the actions of, yet at the same time understand that that those individuals cannot control their desires, and how unfortunate that they have such desires that cannot be fulfilled. Those individuals have to learn to cope with the fact that they in fact must control these desires and cannot submit to them.

The label deviant is one of those self-fulfilling prophecies, ultimately can end up creating the condition it seeks to diagnose. Applied in certain conditions, it does harm and creates an adverse environment not conducive to personal growth. Is that really the most effective way to improve society?