NotNormativelyHuman 167
norms and the relation between the normative and the non-normative
which such a grammar organizes (Bowker and Starr 272). The wide,
shadowyzonesofthebiologicalnon-normativeareanimportantareaof
inquiry for such an analytics because they reveal the structures and
forcesthatbuildandsustaintheculturalimaginaryofnormsbydefining
thebiologicaldifferentialofnon-normativeembodiments.
TheNormalandthePathological:Canguilhem
The culturalanalytic attempted here of the role of human biology in
setting up, stabilizing or destabilizing norms starts from the assumption
that this role goes beyond producing an archive of "what goes."
Consequently, the question of the representational accuracy or
appropriateness of certain norms will take the back seat against an
exploration of their active, i.e., differentiating role in culture, and here
especially U.S.-American culture, a role that I will repeatedly reference
bytheterm"grammar."
For such an agenda, Georges Canguilhem's work on the "normative
activity" as an actively shaping force in human existence, individually
and collectively (43, 178), presents a good point of departure. In his
argumentwhichwouldlateralsoinfluenceFoucault,Canguilhemframes
the Sein/Sollen dualism mentioned above in terms of a systemic
distinction between the normal and the pathological. Moreover, he
understands the relationship of the two not as a petrified absolute
dichotomy but one that is characterized by processes of exchange, even
of mutual determination: "the actual notion of the norm depends on the
possibility of violating the norm" (91). This is essentially a dialectical
understanding of norms (even though Canguilhem does not explicitly
say so) which turns attention away from the definitional fine print of
normstotheirorganizationalpowerasagrammarforunifyingdiversity
andofsett(l)ingdifferences(240).
InThe Normal and the Pathological(1991), one of Canguilhem's
principal focus areas are biological normativities (127-31, 187-92, 227-
41). In his perspective, modern science, especially the life sciences of
medicine and biology, came into existence and subsequently asserted
their authority over the living human being by setting up systems of
"vital normativity" (136, 174-76). For medicine in particular, he claims
that"despitesomanylaudableeffortstointroducemethodsofscientific