Could You Imagine?

Could You Imagine?

            After reading Michael Warner’s The Trouble With Normal I have an entirely new perspective on certain issues, I have been educated and informed about other issues, and in turn I have learned a lot about myself through reading this book. Warner taught me much about sexual shame, homophobia, sex, marriage and the word “normal”. I personally think his argument against marriage is a brilliant argument, and I have never even attempted to even look at marriage in Warner’s light. On page 82 Warner says, “Marriage sanctifies some couples at the expense of others. It is selective legitimacy.” Warner argues that marriage gives certain people privileges over others, for example healthcare. Why is healthcare tied to marriage? Warner is not arguing completely against marriage, but rather a critical critique of how our society deals with marriage. Warner claims that if people want to get married then they should be free to do so regardless of religion, gender, race or sexuality, however Warner would argue that marriage should not be sanctified by the state or any government. I would completely agree because if two people love each other and wish to get married then great for them. However marriage should not give someone privileges that others do not, like healthcare. Before reading this book, if someone were to ask myself what I think about marriage, I would tell them it is a great way to show your love for someone and all around it is a beneficial institution to our society. After reading Warner I would tell them anyone should be able to be married however it should not be at the expense of others. For me, Warner tilted my vision or outlook on society and allowed myself to look at certain issues in a different light, for example the zoning laws in New York I now realize are terribly homophobic policies.

            The single biggest issue that really spoke to me was Warner’s chapter called What’s Wrong with Normal? In this chapter Warner makes a profound argument against social norms, being normal and in general the word “normal”. On page 53 Warner says, “But what exactly is Normal? Answers to this question tend to be statistical.” What Warner is trying to point out is that normal simply means what the majority of people are doing at the time. Being normal is fitting into a statistical norm. What about the people who don’t fit into the statistical norm? This is the problem with normal, it does not work for everyone. What is the point to having a social norm if many people do not match or fit in at all? As a young child in elementary school I was taught to accept everyone and be tolerant of everyone. It is interesting how we are taught that at such a young age but at that very same age we are shown what is “normal” and what is not. On page 53 Warner goes on to say, “ One reason why you won’t find many eloquent quotations about the desire to be normal in Shakespeare, or the Bible, or other common sources of moral wisdom, is that people didn’t sweat much over being normal until the spread of statistics in the nineteenth century.” Once again Warner makes the argument that being normal is purely statistical. I would agree with Warner and I think this shows us something very interesting about how our culture is structured. Why is there a need to be normal? Why is there a need to be similar as others around us? The problem with “normal” is that is puts people on the outside or fringe of society, the very problem with normalcy is that to be normal some people have to be not normal or weird. Being normal is similar to marriage and that is because it might work towards some peoples advantage, but only at the expense of others. Could you imagine an accepting society where nobody was normal and we didn’t have social norms? I can, and in fact I think it would be a better society without outsider groups or people becoming mortal enemies simply because they dress different or have different opinions. What is the point of having a society if everyone is attempting to reach the same goal? Some people may believe it is positive to have everyone clawing and tearing there way towards the same goal at the expense of others. However could you imagine a society where people are doing as they please and working towards whatever makes them happy and not at the expense of others? I certainly can and I think Warner can too. “Being normal” should be stripped from our vocabulary and be replaced with “being yourself”. I don’t want to be like everyone else and I think that anyone should want to be like everyone else, we should all chart our own course.