The Narrowing of Normal

"No one believes anymore that scientists are

trained in science classses or politicians in

civics classes or poets in English classes.

The truth is that schools really don't teach

anything except how to obey orders."

--John Taylor Gatto, "The Curriculum

of the Family" in A Different
Kind of

Teacher, 2001.

A few weeks ago I read about a mother who had her son arrested for smoking pot. I first saw the story via a homeschooling blog, though I don't remember where. (Update: It is at The Thinking Mother here). The blogger seemed troubled by the story, although she could not put her finger on why. My visceral response vis-a-vis my kids and legal athority is to keep the two as far apart as possible. There is ample evidence that the systems euphemistically designed to "help" children in various ways also function to introduce a good deal of conformity among them. And those who refuse to conform are criminalized.

But the story got me thinking again about what I call the "narrowing of normal". It is a pervasive mind-set in our current culture; a mind-set that limits what is considered normal to a very narrow set of behaviors and choices, and criminalizes and/or makes diseases of any behavior outside those rapidly narrowing bounds.

When I was growing up in the 1960s, there were odd people in my world. Most of them could be characterized as "mostly harmless", like the earth itself according to The Hitcher's Guide to the Galaxy. We had words for them, words like 'eccentric" and "strange." Now we have other words for them, words that come from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. In the past, people who just wanted to be left alone were called hermits, but now they are thought to have a disease, one that could be "a danger to society" and must be "treated" for the good of society, and, of course, "for their own good". In the 1950's, unconformity was socially nudged, but now it is legally punished in a variety of ways.

Although adults can get away with being non-conformist to a limited degree, heaven help the child who does not conform to the increasingly narrow norm. I was talking to a former social worker over last winter's holiday, and she was explaining to me why she left the field. She told of terrible stories in which children were made responsible for family dysfunction, labeled and removed from their homes. Often those children ended up with a psychiatric diagnosis and were forced into treatment. Most of the time, this friend explained, they also ended up with legal record as well. A record that, like the one the young man whose mother reported him to the police for smoking pot will have, will bind that child for life, taking certain adult choices out of their reach. Choices like college or a career in politics or medicine.

I have seen the same in schools. Children who respond in any way except passive docility to the officious busy-body interference of school personnel are quickly labeled as oppositional, as defiant, as unable to learn. Screening instruments that cast a wide net of disorder around normally foolish and childlike behaviors are used to label children "in need of assistance" or "at-risk for school failure." A child who retains pride in her not-PC ethnicity, or who defends himself against a bully who comes from the protected ethnic group is likely to be labeled and made the problem.

Temple Grandin calls these potentially labeled behaviors as ones that break the "stupid neurotypical rules." But in the same breath, she warns parents and teachers that it must be impressed upon the child that not conforming with certain such rules could limit their options severely in the future, and even cost them them their freedom from officialdom in the near and far-off future.

Did I say that adults can be less conforming? Lately, at least in Albuquerque, this is only true if they stay away from the police. An elderly couple were arrested and roughed up last summer because they did not response docilely to a complaint that they had left a dog in the car. (It turns out the man had gone to get them all some water). The 90 year old husband ended up in cardiac care and the 87 year old wife was pushed around because she was supposedly trying to escape, even though, with a prosthetic leg and a walker, she wasn't likely to run anywhere faster than the cop. Recently, a young adult with a learning disability spent time in jail for DWI because his speech was slurred, even though his blood alcohol content was 0.00% (that's zero, precise to the hundreth of a percent). His crime? A speech impediment.

And don't get me started on "the war on drugs." Suffice it to say that to put young users caught with a small amount of pot in jail with hardened criminals is not terribly productive. And it is less so, if that person becomes a non-person in society, unable to go to college or work in certain fields, merely for having been arrested for such a "crime."

And then there is the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. The committee making it up is considering diagnoses that would make excess internet use (what is excess?), political apathy (sounds Soviet, nu?), and "parental alienation*" into psychiatric diseases. Being overweight is also being considered as some kind of mental disorder, as well as a socially stigmatized difference.

*I don't know if the parents are alienated or if the children are.

The formerly broad category of "normal", which was once so wide that one could argue about what it really meant, is being narrowed to a frightening degree. And those found outside the bounds are likely to become the targets of special government programs aimed at getting them to conform. Because to those who what's best for us, being different just has to be an impediment to happiness.

I believe this progressive narrowing of normal has two purposes and neither of them are good. The first is to impose fairness upon an unfair world by those who mistake equality for equity. Among such people, individual differences are an affront to their Vision of the Annointed. In the perfect collectivized world, everyone must be made equal. (For a great dystopian short story about this, see Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. A trailer for the movie 2081, based on this story can be seen here).

The other is about control. People who deviate from a very narrow norm can be used to illustrate the consequences of dissent and difference quite effectively, whether those consequences are labled as a mental illness to be medicated or as a crime to be punished. Thus a whole society can be enslaved to an unlivable moral code, their liberty taken from them by masters who have something to gain.

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? . . . We want them broken. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law abiding citizens? . . . But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law-breakers--and then you cash in on guilt." (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, Centennial Edition, p. 436, emphasis in the original).

The narrowing of normal, whether conscious or not, is a way to limit the freedom of others to be who they are. It destroys their liberty and their ability to freely pursue their own happiness, and often, too often, it destroys lives.

Just Thinking about Inclusion and Ideology

"I've been thinking," I said, as we settled into our steamy-hot, pre-Shabbat bath yesterday afternoon.

Generally, my husband Bruce gets a worried look on his face when I say this, fearing that my "thinking" is going to lead to some new and money-intensive rennovation for the house.
But this time, my thinking has to do with the focus or theme of this new semester in my doctoral program. Each semester seems to provoke a particular line of thinking in my mind, and seems to develop its own theme, as I place what I am learning into perspective with what I already know.

For my Trends and Issues in Special Education, I had just read an article by Kauffman that dealt with the inclusion movement and the (pick one) demise, repair, conversion, or reincarnation of the field of special education. And it got me thinking.

And, as I consider what kind of perspective I will bring as a graduate student in my Child Psychopathology class, I started thinking about the individuality, identity and gifts of neurodiverse people that we usually define by pathology such as those with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), Bipolar Disorder, Attention Disorders and others like this, that are essentially defined by differences in the structure and function of the brain. Thinking is added onto thinking!

The confluence of these two streams of thought seems to be coming down to some ideas I have about how in our thinking about education, we are narrowing what we consider to be normal and justifying that by wrapping ourselves in the mantle of "diversity." I was struck by the thought that what is happening in the field of Special Education with regard to inclusion seems to be particularly illustrative of what is happening in our society at large when it comes to dealing with differences. I am certainly not done with thinking about this, but I do have some ideas about what I think is happening. And I think that the concept of inclusion has moved from being one aspect of the continuum of services for special education to being an ideology of almost religious proportions in the minds of its most extreme advocates.

As originally outlined, inclusion meant that along the continuum of special education services, it was sensible to place the student with disabilities in the general education environment as much as possible. This meant that, for example, a student with severe and multiple disabilities, who might need full-day placement in a small classroom with a specialty teacher, should also have recess and lunch within the larger population of the school. But as the idea has evolved, inclusion has for some become about dismantling the continuum of services entirely, and advocating the full-time placement of all special education students in the general education classroom. To the inclusion ideologue, to provide any services in a separate setting is defined as segregation, and the argument is that separate is always inherently unequal. If those words--separate is unequal--sound familiar, they come for the landmark United States Supreme Court Case, Brown v. the Board of Education, which was the school desegregation decision.

It sounds very egalitarian. All children should, they say, have the same educational experience, in the general education classroom, and all necessary services to children with disabilities should be delivered in the general education classroom. This idea is justified by the argument that disabilities aren't really disabilities, and that all of us are fundamentally the same, really, and have the same needs. But when this concept of inclusion is married with the standards movement, which insists that every child should be making exactly the same achievements at the same age, we come to the absurd conclusion that we can mandate equal educational outcomes for all. This is clearly different from the notion that Brown v. Board was intended to ensure equal educational opportunity for all. (This last has problems of its own, and you can read a perspective of what they are here).

And what is really quite interesting--at least to me--is that all of this insisting that everyone is the same is being done in the name of diversity. It makes me wonder if the people who wrap themselves most tightly in the mantle of the diversity movement are the same people who are most afraid of acknowledging that there are real differences among human beings. (For more of my thoughts about this, you can go here).

And so, I am thinking.

I am thinking that it is very interesting that those who cry out the loudest about their respect for diversity, actually want to treat every person as if he or she is exactly the same as every other person. As Thomas Jefferson said, " Remember, first that the greatest inequality is to treat unequal things equally..." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, December 20, 1787).

I am thinking that it is very interesting that the ideology of "no difference" in education arises just as the sciences of neurobiology and genetics are demonstrating the fundamental physical nature of differences among human beings in the brain as well as the body.

I am thinking that a denial of differences among people is a denial of individuality, which is defined by differences. And that if there is no individuality, then it could be argued that there is no need for individual rights. This kind of thinking could lead to a conception of group rights, a kind of fascism or collectivism that strikes at the very heart of the American ideal of individual rights inherent to each person.

I am thinking that it is also very interesting that this denial of individual differences comes at the same time that "Aspies" and other neurodiverse people are finding their own voices. They are declaring that they have their own cultures and their own appreciation of who they are--that their neuro-atypicality is part of their identity; that they don't want to be cured of it, that they like their differences. (See, for example, Daniel Tammet's book, Born on a Blue Day, or Susanne Antonetta's book, A Mind Apart: Travels in a Neurodiverse World. Or go to Aspies for Freedom, a website devoted to these ideas).

Somehow, all of this thinking is going to come together and gel with another train of thought, about what I call the narrowing of normal--which I have yet to write about--and I don't know yet what kinds of conclusions I am going to reach, and how they will affect my direction in my doctoral program.

Right now I am...just thinking.

December Diversity, Not December Dilemma

Ah, the wonderful month of December!

Winter has begun in earnest, with snowstorms, days to snuggle in front of the fire, and time off to spend with family.

And the inevitable questions.
"What are your plans for Christmas?"

And every year, the synagogue puts on a program for the kids about the December Dilemma, which is the current catch-phrase for how to deal with Jewish identity when the whole world around you is going crazy with Christmas.

Years ago, after attending a few of these programs, MLC, now 22, asked us if she could opt out. She said that she didn't feel any sense of dilemma at all in December.


Oh, we had read the requisite Jewish kid's book for the season, There's No Such Thing as a Hannukah Bush, Sandy Goldstein! We dealt with an unauthorized public school visit to Santa Claus disguised as a field trip to the Children's Museum, and we had THE DISCUSSION with teachers about the "C" holiday.

But overall, we decided to adopt a reasonable view of the season. After all, one simply cannot pretend that nothing is happening as most of the world celebrates a major holiday on December 25th. So, as a non-participating family, we decided on two policies about Christmas.

First, we decided to emphasize our Jewish identity all year 'round. For us, this meant living the Jewish calendar as well as living in the secular calendar. We celebrate all of the Jewish holidays with special meals, rituals and customs. Both of the kids have experienced the rich and varied round of the Jewish year, complete with observance of Shabbat every week. We decorate with colored lights--at Sukkot. We bring greenery into the house--at Shavuot. The kids grew up in a Jewish home, repleat with Jewish ritual and custom and traditions.


Perhaps this is why, when I suggested to our rabbi that perhaps the "December Dilemma" programming in the synagogue every year was maybe just a teensy bit overdone, he replied:
"MLC is growing up in a Jewish home and has the richness of numerous Jewish experiences. That is why she does not feel particularly deprived in December. Unfortunately, that is not true for the majority of the kids in our religious school." And he excused her from the program from that point on.


Our second strategy was to educate our kids about the Christmas holiday on an "as needed" basis. We answered questions and we indulged their natural curiosity without defensiveness.
Why be defensive when our kids weren't being deprived?

Sometimes, this meant giving the kids clear rules like, "I know we don't believe in Santa Claus, but it is very rude and unkind to tell other little children that he doesn't exist."

At other times, this meant allowing the children to bake Christmas cookies with their friends, or help decorate a Christmas tree. We also invited their friends to participate in some of our celebrations, such as lighting the Hannukah menorah, eating the Seder, or having havdalah with us. In this way, we emphasized the richness of the human experience, by teaching our kids to respect and appreciate that everyone has holy days, holidays, and ways of marking the passing of the seasons.

We have also enjoyed some of the unique aspects of the Christmas holiday as it is celebrated here in New Mexico. We go down to Old Town on the evening of December 24, to see the luminarias that line the sidewalks. We have taken the kids to Barelas to enjoy Las Posadas, the nine days of processions of Mary and Joseph that are part of the New Mexican and Spanish religious observance of Christmas. Through these activities, we want our children to understand that Christmas is not a secular buying frenzy, but a religious celebration for Christians. It is not our holiday, but it is somebody's holy day, and although it is not right for us to co-opt it for our own ends, neither should it offend us that people are celebrating it.

Our bottom line: It is important for us to observe our own holidays and maintain our Jewish identity. We do not celebrate Christmas just because "everybody is doing it." At the same time, if we are strong in our own identity then we can appreciate and enjoy the celebrations by others. It will not be offensive to us that Old Town is filled with luminarias, that wreaths decorate ABQ Uptown, and that Maria and Jose travel the streets of Barelas. The world would be so much poorer if there were no differences between us.

For us, then, December is a time to enjoy the snow, to walk the dogs, to celebrate Hannukah. And it is also a time to appreciate time off to be with each other because much of the rest of the country is celebrating a major holiday.

I think that our choices were good ones for strengthening our own children's Jewish identities and for teaching them to appreciate the color, the richness, and the fun of living in a world in which people have amazing differences.

We don't experience a December Dilemma. We experience the joy, light and color that come from many different traditions here in the southwest. And we are richer for enjoying the diverse ways people celebrate the turning of the seasons.

Respect for Diversity? Calling a Spade a Spade

Doc got me thinking about the concept of diversity with her theme for the Country Fair this month. "As per usual," as N. likes to say, I didn't have anything to submit at the time. I'm a day late and a dollar short, Doc, as they like to say in my hometown. But I was thinking about it. And then I read this post from Big Mama over at Weaving Our Circle. And it reminded me of a story. And that reminder got me thinking about the whole issue of diversity in the United States.

This could turn out to be a two-part post. But first, the story. This is a true story and I think it says a lot about how comfortable the dominant culture is with differences and diversity in these United States. And that's not much.

The "Jews are Really Christians in Disguise" Story:

I used to be a member of a Jewish-Catholic Dialogue group. We would get together once a month to discuss an assigned reading and once a year, we ran an educational day to bring others in the community to discuss some issue or another. The more we met, the more I got the sense that the group did not want to discuss the hard stuff--like the role of Christian Europe in the Shoah, or even the differences between us. There seemed to be a sense in which the group wanted to get together and feel good about how diverse and accepting we all were. But differences? Well, they make people uncomfortable. Best not to talk about them.

This was confirmed for me when we got together to discuss two articles published in the Jesuit magazine, America. One article, by a self-labeled "conservative Catholic" archbishop, very matter-of-factly discussed some important theological differences between Catholicism and Judaism. And it was clear that the archbishop, speaking from his perspective, thought that Judaism had gotten it wrong about Jesus. This article was not suprising to me and some of the other Jews there. Nor was it offensive. After all, as a very small minority in the United States (somewhere around 2% if we are lucky), we are well aware that we think differently about the identity of Jesus than Christians do. The Archbishop did not express any contempt for Jews. He did point out the areas of disagreement. Strongly. And that had some of the Catholic members of the group falling all over themselves to show how very liberal and tolerant they are by refusing to acknowledge that we do, in fact, have very different beliefs about Jesus.

The second article, by a self-identified "liberal Catholic" was very different. Nothing was strongly worded at all. It appeared on the surface, that the writer was very "acccepting" and "tolerant." But I found his position to be extremely offensive. He argued that essentially Jews are really Christians who just don't know it yet, and therefore are worthy of "salvation." And the Catholic members of the group just couldn't get enough of it. They thought this neatly solved the whole problem of "salvation" for Jews.

For me, that was the problem.
In order to prove how "diverse" they were, the Catholic members who approved of this notion, and not all did, were essentially erasing our identity as Jews. And so I said something like this:

"Look, some of you have a problem with the Christian doctrine that salvation through belief that Jesus was the Messiah is the only way to relate to G-d. This is a Christian problem. It is about Christian doctrine. It has nothing to do with us as Jews. We do not agree with you about that doctrine. And we understand that it is part of the structure of your belief. And it's a free country. You have the right to believe that if you want to. As long as you do not exert force against those who do not agree with you, I am not offended by your belief. But when you take away my identity as a Jew because you are so uncomfortable with the fact that I disagree with you, then I am offended."

As you can imagine, in that group my statement set off quite a---well, discussion. I took some heat. And ultimately, the subject was dropped. Probably because it was too uncomfortable for some of the touchy-feely types who wanted to feel good about how liberal and accepting of diversity they think they are.

And that is the nub of the problem. Accepting diversity means that one accepts that others are not exactly like you. It means looking deep within and recognizing that your way of seeing the world is unique to you. It's a lonely realization. It means recognizing that yes, we are all human beings and members of the same species, with the same evolutionary heritage and genome. We are all very similar. The words Shakespeare puts into Shylock's mouth are:

"If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh?

If you poison us,
do we not die?..."

(Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice Act III Scene I)

However, within this human species of ours, each of us has a unique combinaiton of alleles, making each of us an individual within populations that have different allelic frequencies, making us different enough that we notice. And we also have had handed down to us different cultural memes on what it means to be who we are.

I am sure that everyone who is the object of "diversity" has a story of feeling as patronized as I was in the story above. "Oh, I didn't notice you were black." "Some of my best friends are gay." " I just love the Jews." And so forth, ad nauseum. (To the last, I am tempted to say, "All of us? I don't even like all of us.)"

And we can make excuses for them. I have heard over and over again about how "well-meaning" these people are. About how they are trying to be inclusive, accepting, etc.

But they are not. They are people who, for whatever reason, cannot accept differences. For whatever reason, they are made uncomfortable by people who have different coloring, a different culture, different beliefs, different ways of being human. They are quite willing to erase the identity of another rather than recognize and acknowledge their own fear and discomfort. And that is not "respect for diversity." No, it is a pretense that differences do not matter. And that's a lie.

And it is a scary lie. Given enough power and the right circumstances, could people who tell themselves this lie to allay their discomfort go from erasing the identity of another to erasing the existence of another?

Hmmm. Anne Frank. Matthew Sheppard. Sand Creek. "Strange Fruit."

I think its time to call a spade an " 'f'...'in' " shovel.

The Return of the Country Fair

It's back!

The Country Fair, a carnival of homeschooling voices, is back again.
This means summer is really up and running!

I'm getting a cherry limade at the concession stand in my kitchen and heading on over for the 7th Country Fair: How We Celebrate Diversity.

You can go there, too and get diverse wisdom from a wide-open homeschooling community.

But, first, read on below...
As usual, I missed the deadline with "Neither Left nor Right..."
but I think it fits in with theme!
:)