Dictionary.com defines cliché as: a trite, stereotyped expression; a sentence or phrase, usually expressing a popular or common thought or idea, that has lost originality, ingenuity, and impact by long overuse.
So, by definition, a cliché is already something that is 'trite'? The word is right there in the definition of cliché, so I guess clichés are 'trite' by definition, right? Repetitive? Yup. Trying to make a point here.
So, what is 'trite', then? Well, Dictionary.com defines 'trite' as: lacking in freshness or effectiveness because of constant use or excessive repetition. Kinda what the definition of cliché is trying to say, eh? Sorry....rhetorical.
But, is 'new normal' a trite cliché? That is the burning question being posed in this blog post.
Confused yet?
I suppose the next step might be to ask ourselves if 'new normal' fits the definition of 'trite cliché'? Is 'new normal' even a cliché much less a trite cliché?
Based on the evidence, I'd personally say yes on both counts. But don't take my word for it.
Let's define 'new normal' in order to try and determine if it is truly a 'trite cliché'.
According to Dictionary.com, 'new normal' is defined as a current situation, social custom, etc., that is different from what has been experienced or done before but is expected to become usual or typical.
So, have we established anything thus far....anything at all?
Moving forward....
Can anyone deny that 'new normal' is being used a LOT these days? I can't. I Googled "is 'new normal' a cliché". Upwards of 34 million hits came back. From the hits I saw, it appears safe to say 'new normal' is considered a cliché.
'New normal' is repeatedly used in many different applications. As such, it arguably lacks freshness. It may even lack effectiveness. But the one thing it does is keep on being used...over and over and over again.
Look back at the definition of 'new normal'. Descriptors used are:
- Different...
- Usual...
- Typical...
Basically, that means normal before an event/incident is now different from that previous normal. It's now the 'new normal'. But now that 'new normal' is usual and typical but different from the previous normal. Confusing? It can be.
Living that new usual and typical 'new normal' can be, and often times is, a nightmare for some folks. By the same token, it can be a healing journey for others.
Based on a strict interpretation of 'new normal', it could be applied to someone starting a new job, right? To someone moving from one location to another, right? Or how about to someone who's suffered domestic abuse and has to go into a shelter anonymously? Maybe to a victim of gun violence? Perhaps to someone starting out in a new school? Maybe to someone who's lost a home as a result of foreclosure, or a disaster, or - - - well, you get the picture, I hope.
Is it trite, then, for anyone going through the process of defining a 'new normal' for themselves to be told things like "get over it"?
How about "move on"?
Or, perhaps "you're too damaged to speak to this issue effectively"?
Those things have been said to others in the past, and are still being said to others in the present who've had their lives turned upside down by some form of trauma. Yes, indeed they have been and still are.
But I digress.
Is one person's 'new normal' more relevant than another's? Who's to judge? We'd certainly like to believe we wouldn't judge others, but do we? Of course we do!
Truth is, we hear these kinds of remonstrances all the time. Are they valid? Should they be discounted? Should they be ignored? Do they actually serve a purpose? These are ALL questions we must ask ourselves as we go through the process of defining our own 'new normal' every single day of our lives.
For example, each and every time we wake up in the morning, we begin defining our own 'new normal' for that day. Each and every time we go to work, we define our 'new normal' for that workday. Each and every time we decide to have, or not to have, children, we end up defining a 'new normal' for our lives. Each and every time we begin or end a relationship with someone, we, and the other person involved, begin to define a 'new normal' for ourselves.
The point? Our reality, on a day-to-day basis is defined by what we do, by how we interact with each other. If we choose to stay rooted in our own utopian or dystopian views, some folks, by that very precept, have a tendency to sort of walk away from, or ignore, uncomfortable experiences other people may be going through simply because they are not experiencing the same things those other people are. When something traumatic happens to us, though, do we expect the same from those other folks that they expected from us as they defined their own 'new normal'? I mean, how far can any of this be taken? Tit for tat? What's good for the goose.....?
A long time ago, in a classroom far, far away (University of North Dakota, to be exact), there was a Latin American Studies History Professor by the name of Dr. Hart. By way of explanation, Dr. Hart was one of the more influential individuals who helped shape my thinking, my emotions, my politics, especially at that time.
One day he made a statement that resonated so deeply with me that I literally forgot it for a very long time (actually, I didn't forget it - I just buried it in my psyche over that very long period of time). I try to resurrect it here and now in paraphrased form simply because I'd fallen prey to the very blase' he'd warned me of.
Dr. Hart said something to the effect:
Truth is, we hear these kinds of remonstrances all the time. Are they valid? Should they be discounted? Should they be ignored? Do they actually serve a purpose? These are ALL questions we must ask ourselves as we go through the process of defining our own 'new normal' every single day of our lives.
For example, each and every time we wake up in the morning, we begin defining our own 'new normal' for that day. Each and every time we go to work, we define our 'new normal' for that workday. Each and every time we decide to have, or not to have, children, we end up defining a 'new normal' for our lives. Each and every time we begin or end a relationship with someone, we, and the other person involved, begin to define a 'new normal' for ourselves.
The point? Our reality, on a day-to-day basis is defined by what we do, by how we interact with each other. If we choose to stay rooted in our own utopian or dystopian views, some folks, by that very precept, have a tendency to sort of walk away from, or ignore, uncomfortable experiences other people may be going through simply because they are not experiencing the same things those other people are. When something traumatic happens to us, though, do we expect the same from those other folks that they expected from us as they defined their own 'new normal'? I mean, how far can any of this be taken? Tit for tat? What's good for the goose.....?
A long time ago, in a classroom far, far away (University of North Dakota, to be exact), there was a Latin American Studies History Professor by the name of Dr. Hart. By way of explanation, Dr. Hart was one of the more influential individuals who helped shape my thinking, my emotions, my politics, especially at that time.
One day he made a statement that resonated so deeply with me that I literally forgot it for a very long time (actually, I didn't forget it - I just buried it in my psyche over that very long period of time). I try to resurrect it here and now in paraphrased form simply because I'd fallen prey to the very blase' he'd warned me of.
Dr. Hart said something to the effect:
We are all passionate about something. Some of us are more passionate about a few things. Others are more passionate about many things. Some are even passionate about only one thing. The true test of our passion(s), however, is whether or not we actually remember what we were so passionate about 10, 15, 20 or more years down the road.Over the years, I believe we ALL become less passionate about some of the things we held near and dear to our hearts when we were younger. It's called life interrupting....or, our own constantly developing and evolving 'new normal'. Nothing wrong with that. We all go through it. As we mature, we take on more and more responsibilities.
However, should that also preclude us from the possibility that those passions still exist within us? That perhaps those previous normals still have relevance? That they can, and perhaps should, be resurrected? Can we 'open our heads', as Katherine puts it to me so often, to the reality we do not actually live in a bubble? Rather, we choose to construct a bubble around ourselves arguably as a means of self-protection or self-defense....the 'new normal' we establish as a direct result of an experienced trauma in our lives?
Should people stop using 'new normal' as a cliché to describe their post-traumatic experiences? Maybe, but maybe not. I suppose it really doesn't matter one way or the other in the scheme of things. People are gonna people no matter what I say.
Perhaps it might be more appropriate to go with the cliché, "Time Heals All Wounds" attributed to Rose Kennedy. Just remember, there's more to this cliché than just the four words "Time Heals All Wounds" because context matters:
 |
| Time Heals All Wounds - QuoteFancy |
So, 'new normal'.....trite cliché or not? Well, you're going to have to please forgive me if I cringe a little bit whenever I hear someone say we need to define a 'new normal' in response to school massacres. Yes, I went there.
For me, personally, trying to define a 'new normal' for myself and for my family following the massacre at Columbine High School was a literal impossibility. It just did not compute. I could not wrap my head around the concept. For me, it was a cliché that was, and still is, in a word, trite.
My two cents.
* Comments on this blog are moderated.
No comments:
Post a Comment