An Historical View of Normalcy

Despite affectations of uniqueness, we’re all driven by intense desires to appear normal. This social instinct to conform is present from birth. It’s just a hint that you’ll suffer strange psychic disturbances at mid-life, when your individuality begins to emerge.

Don’t panic, this split in the personality is natural. But, because it’s so little acknowledged, we must go far back in time to discover why. Young people may be astonished that this search for historical roots leads into the ancient world — of the nineteen-fifties.

The brutality characteristic of that time was recorded on crude black and white media transmissions through a “boob tube.” Brief but startling interruptions in the fantasy-based programming allowed viewers to tune into real-time events at the end of each day.

Euphemistically referred to as news, these horrifying glimpses into reality were successfully numbed by unconscious associations with the pleasant dream-world surrounding them. Viewers were quick to identify with the new carefully manipulated means of repression.

To redirect any reflection on the actual state of affairs, “sit-coms” depicting outlandish exaggerations of human behavior, accompanied by dubbed laughter at prescribed intervals, subtly informed a smooth flow into the newly scripted norm.

Fiercely competitive game shows stressed acquisition and entitlement to spur industry after a devastating world war — and to avert attention from the increasing threat of run-away destructive tendencies. Owing to the anxiety of the time, all desperately seized upon the new medium without compunction. This is not to be wondered at:

Contrasting with today’s highly educated specialist, a “general practitioner” slapped the newborn’s bottom in that distant age to jump-start its breathing. Judging from available records, since most infants’ lungs were then located in the chest cavity, we can only theorize that it was to accustom it at the outset to being hit by parents and strangers alike. The para-sexual practice was so prevalent, we assume it to have been a primitive birth rite associated with the reigning cult of violence.

No general instruction or education was provided for the care of the wee thing, and upon initiation it was thenceforth dispatched to the homes of inexperienced novices whose worst traits were only magnified by the confusion of having brought a living self-replicant into their private, inside-out social bubbles. The compulsion to tackle such a task without knowledge or preparation was happily accepted by all, along with a host of other irrational behaviors describing the history of that age.

The powerful symbolic significance of the child was unrecognized by the rude psychology of that era; its broader evolutionary function remained as unconscious as in the Anthropithecus Abnormalis of prehistoric times. Of course, we now know that the child is also a profound psychic image: each generation’s highest hopes doubled back against natural, regressive instincts for self-examination and reflection with the aim of higher development.

Relentless coaching was required to refute this, and the contradictions intended to reveal unconscious aims through reflection were subliminally absorbed by the infant to be channeled into the hostile and defensive reactions required to participate in the norm.

The pointless and frustrated squandering of vital energies dedicated to re-interpreting natural functions into embarrassing and inadmissible private “necessities” afforded effective early training for the grander cultural illusions awaiting the tiny initiate.

As determined as the efforts were, they failed to fully repress the drive to self-awareness behind the dissociated intellectual development of that day. Devious commercial marketing of all manner of useless gadgetry merged with a vast entertainment industry to siphon off the psyche’s increasing demand for personal and social consciousness. This only plunged the culture deeper into regression.

The natural, ape-like instinct for imitation was artificially managed to retard the much-needed reflection, and the child was alternately cajoled, hit and screamed at to ensure conformity to the mass madness. So advanced was emotional retardation in the boys, they yearned to hit others far beyond the attainment of physical maturity.

Many habitually struck their spouses, not just in retribution for the chimp-like traditions forced upon them, but to hone the competitive ruthlessness which drove the obsessive commercial machinery. Most were routinely whipped into submission from an early age to abet the general conspiracy of self-neglect required for an exclusive focus on commerce far exceeding need or comfort.

The primitive desire to hit and be hit was so conducive to the objectives of educators and parents and fitted so neatly into the collective program, none inspected the deep personal insecurities beneath the violent cycle of reaction and response.

Due to guilt-ridden projections, the imitative function bidding the youngsters practice the lessons they learned on each other was paradoxically punished. Authorities had also to rationalize the humiliations inflicted upon their own youth: unconscious retaliation for the still-living brute and the buried shame of ignominies required to mold a credulous and exploitable citizenry.

No reliable records exist of the girls’ reactions to these conditions. They were segregated into a far-off emotional world beyond psychic reach of the boys who later became the men who furnished the only reports we have. More objective assessments must discard them as too subjective: crudely egoistic caricatures of an early stage of development.

The split between the sexes was so deeply rooted, males often persisted in chiding one another long into adulthood for crossing the artificial sexual barrier when mating for purposes outside coitus.

Consonant with the lack of reflection and the blind acceptance of gender roles, moribund religious rituals deeply entrenched in a rigid patriarchy held any reconciliation of the sexual divide in strict abeyance.

As psychic images were then viewed as concrete things, the repressed urge to reconcile contradictory impulses and the consequent one-sidedness contributed significantly to the homosexuality which flourished in all genders. Appearance dictated that sexual differences existed only in the body, and causation was ascribed to dualistic notions of hereditary weakness and environmental circumstance as suited the typological bias of the investigator.

Unconscious fealty to patriarchal ideals with no compensating feminine image was so tightly woven into the fabric of society that the effete religious views were shrouded in superstition and forbidden any elaboration. It remained to be discovered that the goals of psychology were inseparable from spiritual development, and their separate inquiries remained at cross-purposes.

Beneath the religious cult was a morbid fear of nature which endured despite the grave consequence of destroying that which supported it. Mental functions were sensed as powerful demons just as they had been for eons.

The rote science of that era was so fixed on objects, symbols were declared meaningless across the psychic board. Any emotional advancement was thus stopped in its tracks. Because of the stoppage, the innate balancing function of spiritual values needed to guide the use of dangerous technologies metastasized into a compulsive greed for personal wealth and power.

For a more serious inquiry into collective ideals, visit Amazon.


Filed under Psychology

2 Responses to An Historical View of Normalcy

  1. dale hanks

    Question: Is it true that Romeo and Juliet first met on a blind date at Wimpy’s Hamburger Joint in southeast London? Wimpy’s makes this claim, but they are known for exaggeration. Thanks.

    • Great question! Not quite — but close. Wikipedia states that the rumor began in the wake of the immense popularity of Romeo and Juliet as an advertising ploy by what was then Wimpy’s Tavern in southeast London. Shakespeare did frequent the famous establishment, however, along with other playwrights at the turn of the 17th century to have a warm hamburger, a brisk ale, and to discuss ideas around the time the play “went viral.” After Shakespeare’s death, it became Wimpy’s-on-Avon Alehouse and Burgers, and eventually the Wimpy’s Hamburger Joint Londoners still enjoy today.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *