To be a minority is to have a disorder

To be a minority is to have a disorder


According to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary1, the word 'disorder' can be defined with two interpretations:
1. to disturb the order of
2. to disturb the regular or normal functions of

In the context I will be discussing, the applicable definition of the word 'disorder' is 2.

In order to understand this definition to it's fullest, the word 'normal' must be defined. According to the same online dictionary, the word 'normal', the, adjective can be defined with eight interpretations2:

1 : perpendicular; especially : perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency
2 a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
3 : occurring naturally <normal immunity>
4 a : of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development b : free from mental disorder : sane
5 a of a solution : having a concentration of one gram equivalent of solute per liter b : containing neither basic hydroxyl nor acid hydrogen<normal silver phosphate> c : not associated <normal molecules> d : having a straight-chain structure <normal butyl alcohol>
6 of a subgroup : having the property that every coset produced by operating on the left by a given element is equal to the coset produced by operating on the right by the same element
7 : relating to, involving, or being a normal curve or normal distribution <normal approximation to the binomial distribution>
8 of a matrix : having the property of commutativity under multiplication by the transpose of the matrix each of whose elements is a conjugate complex number with respect to the corresponding element of the given matrix

The definition that I will focus on of the word normal that is applicable to this context is 2.

In the world today, there are a variety of medical disorders. A medical disorder can be defined as "A disease or medical condition is an abnormal condition of an organism that impairs bodily functions, associated with specific symptoms and signs"3.
Medical disorders can be classified five different categories:4
1. Mental Disorders
2. Physical Disorders
3. Genetic Disorders
4. Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
5. Functional Disorders

It is important to note that disorders are defined culturally, and not universally. In some areas of the world a set of traits may be considered a behaviorial disorder, and elsewhere be considered the norm. In fact, disorders are completely based upon what is the norm and what is not the norm; now take a look at the definition of the word 'minority'.

1 a : the period before attainment of majority b : the state of being a legal minor
2 : the smaller in number of two groups constituting a whole; specifically : a group having less than the number of votes necessary for control
3 a : a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment b : a member of a minority group <an effort to hire more minorities>5


It can be concluded from these definitions, specifically 3, that a minority is a part of the population that differs from other. In otherwords, differing from what is 'normal'.

If normal is defined as conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern, and a disorder is to disturb the regular or normal functions of -insert topic here-, all minorities are a disorder.

Personality disorders are diagnosed based on a set of traits that are different than most of the population, and this is considered an acceptable diagnosis.



However, when one applies the same logic to any other area they are disputed.

According to what I have defined, any deviant to the normal would be a disorder. Homosexuality, asexuality and bisexuality are all disorders- for they are not the normal functions of sexuality, which normal is defined as the 'masses'.

Being an INFJ is a disorder, for they are not the normal functions of personality, which are defined by the masses.

How can a person take a disorder seriously when it just means something is not functioning 'normally', as is observed in the masses?

Physical disorders are easier to accept because if you have something in your body that is visibly not working the way it should be in contrast to how it works in the majorities of other peoples, it is understood to be abnormal, a disorder, and therefore should be fixed.

Usually physical disorders are labeled as 'diseases' or 'conditions'.

If one is a minority, culturally, it is typical for them to be labeled with a disorder. Therefore, my conclusion is, that if one is a minority they have a disorder.

What is the validity of disorders if they are so culturally based on the norm and cannot be universally applied?

Any thoughts?


1http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disorder
2 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/normal
3 Quoted from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorder_(medicine)
4 Based on information from Wikipedia,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorder_(medicine)
5 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/minority

 

But to a certain extent the invention of disorders is possibly one way to enforce the social contract and maintain social order. The concept of the masses ruling the minority, that what the majority of people say is 'right' is diplomacy. Most people agree with that concept.

 

Then again,take one minorities opinion and apply it to the masses. You'll have to become a Saddam Hussein in order to be able to enforce minority opinion on masses.

 

Well because if minorities aren't labelled as wrong they are a threat to the current ideas. If enough people start to accept the disorder as being 'not a disorder' it may change to be a norm. In order to control and maintain the social contract, and mostly out of fear, ideas have to be suppressed. I notice large groups tend to do this- the more people you get who think alike want to suppress ideas.

A room full of people who don't believe in God want to suppress the idea that God does exist, because the idea that God does exist conflicts with and threatens their idea that God does not exist.

 

There has to be a flaw in my logic here, somewhere.

 

I'll just wait until someone disagrees with me, that's basically why I posted this.

I get ideas and then I have to filter them out to see if my logic is valid or not, and where I went wrong. I think this idea has some shaping up to do because there are probably some factors I did not evaluate very well.

 

I can't post anything on the INTJ forums like this, it isn't my persona there, and it would also reveal my identity.

 

I was expecting people to disagree with me or debate my idea so I can see different perspectives and the flaw in my reasoning here.

Also nobody answered the opening post's questions either.