ab·er·rant
ˈabərənt,əˈberənt/
adjective
- departing from an accepted standard.
- An interesting word and one that is usually taken as a bad thing. I don't think anyone would argue with that. This word, this adjective, comes to mind and I wonder about its' use. I get a feeling applying that adjective to certain behaviors would be considered politically incorrect and insensitive in today's' world. I also feel that adjective describes, as adjectives do, the behaviors exactly.Why is no one saying that ? It is because of the implied negative connotation. But, my question is, if you support these behaviors wouldn't you also support the adjective that describes that behavior ? I believe you would unless of course you believe in the negative label that adjective applies. It can be a bit confusing. The meaning is quite clear to me.
- The figures are varied, as statistics will be, but the general consensus is that fewer than 4% of the population identify themselves as non-hetersexuals. I would call that an aberration. I believe it fits the description. That isn't the same as saying the behavior is wrong, just an aberration or deviation from the norm. Still, the synonyms for this word are no better. So that begs the question, is any deviation from the norm a bad thing ? Well, not necessarily. Variety is the spice of life, isn't that what they say ? Why then is society so resistant to change ? I believe it is because we do not want surprises. Man likes things to be the way we expect them to be. Societies define a social order and acceptable behaviors within that society. When those norms are challenged we become uncomfortable.
- We are experiencing just such challenges today. Less than 4% of the population demanding their behavior be accepted as normal. It is an interesting distinction between accepting a behavior as " normal " and not persecuting the behavior should it occur. We call the later, tolerance. This tolerance and acceptance has taken place in every society throughout time. It began the first time man banded together in a community. One became the leader and defined the rules within that society. Resentment came from the ruled, the weaker section. This pattern has repeated itself ever since. It is also a pattern that has lead to the downfall of every society as well. What is the answer ? If I knew that I could lead the world !
- We are in a period of redefining societal norms. A period of upheaval. It should not be unexpected or a surprise to anyone, yet, it always is. Catastrophic events sometimes occur and bring the society back together, at others the opposite effect is felt. Ours, America, is a young society as societies go. The growing pains are becoming obvious. When attempting to fabricate the ideal, that is to be expected. The only question is, is it feasible ? A standard society ? No, it is not feasible due to the nature of man. Change is inevitable. Those being ruled will eventually revolt. It really makes no difference whether those being ruled are financially stable or not, a common misconception, it is the ideology that will cause the changes. Nothing motivates more than ideology, except maybe religion. I am not saying America will collapse. I am saying society will change. We can choose to adapt to that society or revolt against it. It is a dilemma faced by us all, in time. Our reaction to the changes defines the society. Will we change the definition ? If that occurs certain behaviors are no longer considered as being aberrant. There are many things that were considered aberrant when we first formed our society that are not considered so today. There has been a redefining. Has the " fundamental ideology " changed ? Not yet, but I believe it will because history proves that out. When that occurs the society crumbles, the foundation destroyed. Just how much can we change before that happens ? I sure wish I had the answer to that one.
No comments:
Post a Comment