Dec 2nd. Abnormal versus atypical

Some time ago we read a book by Judith Butler in our book club where she made the difference between atypical versus abnormal when referring to aspects of gender not usually encountered by the general public.

It is only when the two words are put side by side that the difference became so revealing.

Most of us think of ourselves as "normal" and think nothing of considering those different from us as abnormal, rather than just plain different.

It is easy for us to think of the average of a group characteristic to be normal for that group when a better description is that it is typical of that group.

There is a sense of exclusion implied by the term "abnormal" that lends it politically explosiveness.  It is the first step in drawing the separation line between the "in" and "out" groups.

In contrast, atypical merely acknowledge that there is a difference without imparting a value judgment of whether that difference matters in any respect.

The examples used in Butler's book are of those born with sexual organs that were a mismatch with their gender identity.  The label of "abnormal" led to "corrective" surgery, hormone injections, and other interventions in an effort to make individuals more like "normal" members of society.

Some of these individuals ultimately felt so out of place between their physical body and their gender identity that they have surgery to undo all these prior efforts.

For most of us who are not doctors and nurses attending births, we are not aware of the various birth "abnormalities" that happen because they are rare in percentage terms. Babies born with an extra finger for example, are a harmless feature.  Yet it is hard to find another word to replace "abnormality" for this.


It was not that long ago that homosexual tendency was seen as "abnormal". It also carried the belief that this "abnormality" can be "corrected".

Now that we understand that it is a mere difference in preference and attraction, we can still say it is atypical based on numbers within the population but no longer consider it as abnormal.

So are there instances where abnormal can be use appropriately?

We can perhaps consider good health as a normal condition and that someone stricken by disease is abnormal and expects to return to perfect health later.

Here again, consider someone with an amputated limb from an injury that will never grow a natural limb again.  Is this person atypical or abnormal? Or both?

It is becoming more and more like determining normalcy is a subjective judgment term that cannot avoid separating someone from mainstream society. Applying the normalcy test implies that there is a correct way to be and shuts out the diversity of possibilities that exists without judgement.

So should we give up on the notion of being normal altogether?  What will be life like if there is no standard of being normal?  Nothing will be considered as deviant behavior?

It may not be so bad.  No more discrimination and moralizing by third parties. All legitimate actions based on consent of the parties involved.

What about the strange incident of the person who had an agreement with another to be killed and eaten?  Surely that is strange, atypical, and.... abnormal?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes

Is that not reason to pass judgement?

So some things should be judged and condemned.  What are they?

Some videos on abnormal and atypical:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtJCGGMUa5Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B2xOvKFFz4