Penny Thoughts: Considerations of a “New Normal”

The COVID-19 fiasco has given rise to a description of our culture which has been disconcerting from the onset of its pronouncement. To this day, it is difficult to try to define exactly what is a “new normal.” It seems to be another of the proliferation of clever sounding phrases, foisted upon the citizenry to capture in a single iteration what may be anticipated after some monumental event which may define “changes”.

It is convenient. It sounds astute. It portends of great impact. Closer analysis reveals that “normal” is difficult to define in the first place. It also implies that whatever it is supposed to herald and identify, it anticipates something which will be infinitely different from that which presently is the case. 

Considering the naming of something as “normal” clearly indicates an appreciation of that which is “static” extending into the realm of “dynamic”. “Normal” indicates something “static” or unchanging, while “dynamic” is the very canon of change.

What we know of the universe – and, admittedly that is limited – the irony of our poor powers to succinctly define it indicates that its “only constant is change”. A prominent pre-Socratic philosopher, Heraclitus, has further made this point when he added, “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.”

Heraclitus may have extended his dictum ad nauseum here, but it still makes the point. The contradiction of change being constant on the one hand (static), it implies an extension of its application as dynamic on the other hand.

This can be the vortex of confusion. If “normal” is tied to something permanent, or static, but relies on change as its vehicle, then it is a verbal ruse. “Normal” is generally tied to the defining elements of a culture, which are, then, tied to its level of technology. 

When did the “new normal” include fire? Then buildings which did not crumble when the rains came? Then the moveable print? Then gunpowder? Then the typewriter? Then the computer? It would seem, subsequently, that each of these technological milestones ushered in a “new normal” itself.

Obviously, the issue is with the notion of “normal”. If we accept that “normal” is not static, but is dynamic, then “normal” is never a snapshot of its time; but rather, it is the continuous accumulation and play of the events it identifies, names, and ushers in so, there is never a “new” normal. “Normal” is merely a different rendition of the culture from which it emerges and on which it has been built.

Still, we are bombarded with the phrase that is at once intriguing and challenging. When “new normal” is mentioned in connection with some previously not identified practice, it triggers an undeniable response. It is either welcomed or it is abhorred, but there is no doubt that it prompts some measure of reaction. In all instances, nevertheless, it gets our attention and fosters a visceral corollary.

With the blatant mismanagement of the COVID-19 debacle through the manipulation of the data collection and the esoteric application of the “science”, there have emerged some startling questions regarding our social and cultural status as a Nation. They paint a rather ominous picture of any “new normal.”

• How long will we be commanded to wear masks?
• Will we be able to go back to our Houses of Worship, and if we can, will we be permitted to sing?
• Will there be a capacity limit to attending our Houses of Worship?
• Will our children ever be able to go back to school?
• Will there ever be interscholastic activities or sports?
• Will our economy be able to rebound from the arbitrary closings of small business?
• Can we believe that there will ever be a vaccine?
• Will a new vaccine be required?
• How will such a vaccine requirement be enforced?
• What will “contact tracing” involve?
• Will we be required to accept the insertion of a chip into our bodies to verify our vaccinations or emerging illnesses?
• Will we be able to shake hands again?
• Will we devolve into a “cashless” economy?
• Will we be able to have weddings, funerals, or graduations with more than a given number of attendees?
• Will we ever trust the “science” again?
• Will we ever be able to recover the loss of liberties tyrannically commandeered from us by governors and State and municipal law makers?

It is no sudden epiphany that these questions represent changes radically different than what has been previously practiced in our Nation. And they initiate an anxiety if they are not answered satisfactorily. Yet such impositions as these current practices provoked by COVID-19 over-reaction warrant serious consideration, because even though they may be a function of process change, they still stimulate critical dialogue.

While “change” is a clear function of cultural evolution, it is subject to input and challenge by its constituents. And that is exactly the obligatory safeguard against governmental largesse that citizens in a republic must constantly engage.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of The West Alabama Watchman.