What is "Normal"?

(Note: I am listening to Beethoven's Violin Concerto as I write this, so if I accidentally write "Beethoven is awesome", or a string of musical notes, or somehow launch into a lecture on the history of Western music, you know what to blame. )

Recently, Mom-NOS made a post regarding the Virginia Tech shootings and her fears that it would have repercussions for autistic people. Another blogger used this post as an opportunity to express his rabid hatred of autism and "Neurodiversity" (I suppose that he was at least polite enough to call it Neurodiversity and not Neuroinsanity like he normally does...). His comments and any discussion of them have been deleted from the blog. I did not see all of them, but if he was as determined to insult autistic people and anyone who accepts them as he normally is, the comments probably should have been deleted.

But enough of that. My purpose for this post is not to endlessly insult John Best, but to put forth a question to those who are opposed to Neurodiversity: where do you draw the line? Do you want everyone to be normal? What, then, is normal? In Australia , my country of residence, it is considered normal to enjoy sports and barbeques at the beach, and to be rather suspicious of intellectual pursuits. At my university, it is considered normal to play a musical instrument to a high degree of profiency, something is NOT the norm in the broader Australian society. In my neighbourhood, it is normal to have white or tanned skin and be of a working or lower-middle-class background. In other places in the world, it is normal not to know where your next meal is coming from.

"Normal" is always seen within a context. And even within these contexts, great variation is seen. For instance, in my cousin's family (not using my own because my siblings and I are all within the autistic spectrum or the broader autistic phenotype and thus do not qualify as "normal") there are three "normal" girls. One has dark brown hair, one has blonde hair, the youngest has red hair. Two of them are talented musicians. Two of them have played the clarinet, one of those two has also played the viola. The youngest is a soccer player with an interest in the hospitality industry. The middle child loves the colour pink and wants to go into film-making. The oldest has two young children with her fiance. All these differences, but noone would suggest that any of these people were abnormal. (At least, I hope they wouldn't.)

Now for some more extreme examples of variation. My cousins have an older sister who is autistic and believed to have the intellectual functioning of a four-year old. Her interests are mostly restricted to having baths, playing with zippers, putting on and taking off clothes, leafing through advertising pamphlets, and occasionally throwing things at me. She does not talk. These things are not considered normal.

Now, something in the middle. As a child, I had physiotherapy, occupational therapy and many years of speech therapy. I have a marked preference for my own company, and the people who I consider to be friends can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Most of my time is spent playing music, composing music, thinking about music, or reading about autism. When I am happy, I frown rather than smiling. Certain events, such as the transition from the 2nd to the 3rd movement in Beethoven's violin concerto (see, I told you I'd work in a reference to Beethoven! :D ) make me grin and flap my hands with delight. Is this "normal" or "abnormal"? Where do we draw the line? Do we say "It is normal to have 4 or more areas of interest at a time, anything more than that is Restricted and Stereotyped"? Do we say "Normal people have at least 5 friends and interact with them for at least 2 hours per week, anything less than this will be considered as a Qualitative Impairment in Social Interaction"? I don't know. I am not proposing to define normality. Anyone who is: I invite you to answer these questions.

Some parents who are opposed to Neurodiversity use the (valid, at least in my opinion) argument that they just want their children to be able to function in the real world. (Autistics CAN and DO thrive in the real world. I am one of the best students in my major study at my university, and one of the lecturers here is diagnosed with residual Asperger's syndrome. (then again, Aspergians aren't "real autistics" because we can talk and stuff)).

What is a normal level of functioning? I can do complicated arithmetic in my head; I have friends who struggle to do the same thing on paper. My friends would not be considered abnormal for not having the same ability that I do. I tend to excel at academic pursuits, but I can barely plan my own week. In a university environment, I thrive, if I had to organise someone's activities for a week, I would be lost. My brother's friend is a good bike-rider, but he cannot play any musical instruments, compose, or manipulate music electronically. Within the context of my university, he would be seen as very low-functioning. My cousin cannot talk, but she can still put her foot in her mouth at the age of 24. In the area of leg flexibility, she is high-functioning.

"Normal" depends on the context in which people are seen. "Level of functioning" depends on what is being assessed. I do not believe that "normal" can be defined. If you do believe this, I invite you to define it for me.

Post-script (Beethoven is awesome... Mozart was born in Salzburg ... the twelve-tone system... :D )