Editor’s CommentnWhat’s normalcy?nNo one knows exactly. People with an innate propensitynfor moody incertitude would argue that, to begin with, itndoes not exist. Both scientists and sophist philosophers arenuneasy with it: it is somehow counter to the on-the-otherhandnrecipe for knowledge. On the other hand, however,nwithout the notion of normalcy, both science and casuistrynwould turn into sports of irrationality turned loose, whichnthey can hardly afford. Thus, a biologist might argue thatnnormalcy is 68° Fahrenheit, that is a temperature in whichnmany organisms best grow and prosper. It’s a cogent definition,nthough useless outside of a laboratory. Nature is knownnfor never having produced two identical limbs, minds ornrocks. So how can we speak of one standard applicable tonlove, democracy, sophistication, compassion or sense ofnhumor.’nAs normalcy was not provided by nature, we had to donsomething about it. We discovered early that the lack ofnnormality in the universal scheme was a defect, and we hadnto correct it. We felt its need. So, we invented it. We thoughtnit up; it was necessary for us to have a measure of viablenorder, indispensable for living in a community, in a society,nor just peaceably one next to another. Thus, its possiblenabsence at the moment of creation is not proof of its nonexistence.nIt exists now just as the internal combustion engine,naspirin, differential calculus and the State Department.nOo—what’s normalcy.’nIt is a standard, or a set of standards, applicable and acceptablento most, to the largest amount of people. A rathernprimitive exemplification: most people react adversely tonnoxious smells. But both medicine and literature teach usnthat there are some people who cull an unexpected bliss fromnsniffing odors the majority of mankind abhors. We call thenfirst response normal and the second unusual, extraordinary,nor interesting, if we are either very hip or very polite. Wenmay call it abnormal.nFor centuries, normalcy—as a notion, a word and a practicalnframe of reference for arts and sciences—generatednlittle excitement, or even interest. It was a concept whichnwe could deduct from data offered to us by reasoning, empiricism,nobservation. Sages might have nursed some suspicionsnabout its precise meaning, but they did not consider it urgentnto probe and dissect it. Not long ago, however, the post-nEinsteinian natural sciences fractured the very notion ofnnormalcy without abrogating its necessity. With the arrivalnof institutionalized psychology and psychoanalysis, normalcynfell into disgrace.nFor a hundred-odd years, the doctors of psyche have beennwaging a merciless and murderous war of extinction againstnnormalcy. They call it the worst names and swear not to restnuntil it is totally eradicated from our minds, feelings andnChronicles of Culturennnbodies; our primary need to relate to something more stablenand solid than dreams, drives and dreads seems unwholesomento the psychoanalysts. The animus against normalcy on thenpart of those learned in dealing with murky impulses maynbe grounded in their faithfulness to science’s honor, to thenresults of their research, and in speculations which makenthem conclude that normalcy is a false, or at least spurious,npresumption. But many wonder whether it is the purity ofnscientific freedom that is at stake. Many of us see normalcynnot only as something complex and enigmatic, but also asnsomething both utilitarian and idealistic, pragmatic andnvisionary in the same breath—in a word: something muchntoo weighty to be left to psychologists to decide. “I amnpositive I have a soul; nor can all the books with whichnmaterialists have pestered the world ever convince me tonthe contrary—” Laurence Sterne wrote when spiritual equipmentnwas rabidly denied to humans by the militants of then18th-century antisoul movement. Billions of people on thisnplanet are equally positive that normalcy exists—and, moreover,nthat it is indispensable for a sense of eventual survivalnin the world of today, where the norms of human values andncogent human endeavors are gleefully shattered by the socialnelites gone nihilist and by the liberal media which supportnthem. People have a burning desire to preserve the virtue ofnblushing when obscenities are spread around, and to expectnan “Excuse me—” when bumping into each other. Theynyearn to call this state of things normalcy, while calling thendisposition or conduct of those who tend to do away withnblushing and civility abnormal.nT, bus, during all those millennia when we lived withnnormalcy as a welcome and admired partner, it becamenmore than a word, a notion, a point of reference. It has nownbecome our sixth sense. As we know them, human sensesnare distinguished by the circumstance that most people haventhem in common—though not all of the people; much as wenwish that everybody could see, there are the sightless amongnus. We may be aware that it’s immensely hard to define thensense of normalcy, but it is possible. It is a sense which isnclose to taste and touch, with a wide range of differentiatednpreferences. We all know that at a certain point, the amountnof hotness in a dish can reach a degree at which even thenmost enthusiastic afficionado of spiced food will find personalnoffense. Not long ago, America’s newspapers obtrusivelynpeddled the story of a youthful homosexual whondecided to take a homosexual date to his high school prom.nThe adolescent deviate was not off the mark as far as hisncorrect gauging of the sociocultural climate of his age isnconcerned: we live in times of the hypertrophy of a peculiarnmood of tolerance, when every excess or abuse of the sensenof normalcy is tolerated, while a free opinion about thosenabuses is not. He can hardly be called a nonconformist, asn