Bloom...

... again. The flowers are blooming again. Is it too soon, though?

Deaf

I remember this article I once read. It was called the "Michael Jackson pill" and discussed the various implications if a hypothetical treatment became reality. What if, the paper asks, we could eradicate skin colour, hair-differences, and other such biological phenotypes that distinguish us according to race? It was purely hypothetical, but then I came across this case of the Deaf culture.

In particular, with cochlear-implant technology improving, is there a point whereby Deaf-ness becomes a choice? If it then becomes seen as a choice, then it makes it become a condition that can be eradicated. Anything from here on becomes a bit political, and I'm probably not equipped to deal with such consequences.

Still, I do wonder what having a "norm" entails. Medically, it makes sense to have a "norm"--a baseline standard of health that people should aspire toward. To what end, though? To be functional, useful people of society, I imagine. That perhaps would also provide a useful framework to discuss "norms" of a more social nature.

If norms provide a collectively unified framework of experiences, then it becomes an important platform for communication--and hence for the formation of community. In this aspect, there is hence perhaps some value in subjecting ourselves to mass media; to the content which the general public is exposed to.

Such experience and knowledge is important to "operate within the system." That is a key concept of several small movements. Apart from massive revolutions where the entire system becomes shattered (which requires gathering critical mass), the next-best way to effect change is to "work within the system" in an inside-out sort of way. So we need to recognise the "norms"--need to know the system.

It's quite funny to imagine though. We congregate into groups and draw identity from it. Yet, whenever I've tried to get to know someone individually, there is often so much more to that person. People are a lot bigger on the inside--that's from Doctor Who. I'm sure there are a lot of social theories which discuss this concept.

I just wonder if it's a bit arrogant to appropriate the struggles and issues pertaining to communities very unlike my own. I wonder if finding people who share the same struggles as me would give me stronger anchoring and security in the struggles I am facing. I wonder also if this is an anchor I would want. Do I really want to draw identity from painful experiences? Do I really want to let it define me?

And yet, if there was a treatment to completely eradicate both the memories and the scars of what happened to me, would I take it? These experiences that have somewhat-perhaps liberated (a very strong word which I hesitate to use but for lack of a more robust vocabulary) me from the norms I have unknowingly subscribed to in the past. 

These experiences are hence ultimately valuable, somewhat... I suppose. And yet, if forgetting/ignoring makes me more normal (in that I fit the "norm" better), isn't that also important/necessary?

Balance, isn't it? That's often the quick, universally-applicable answer.