Non‐normative relationships: is there a norm of (non)normativity?

Abstract

The call for papers for this special issue of the Western Journal of Communication requested manuscripts on 'non-normative relationships.' Specifically, relational contexts potentially appropriate for the special issue included, but were not limited to, long-distance relationships, online relationships, parent-adult child relationships, single parent and stepfamily relationships, interracial relationships, sexually diverse relationships, and other relationship types that are significant yet under-studied. Whether implicitly or explicitly, what the call for papers suggests is that 'non-normative relationships' are somehow akin to or aligned with 'under-studied relationships.' A paucity of research exists in the communication literature under the banner of 'under-studied relationships.' Wood and Duck (1995), however, provided an edited volume on 'under-studied relationships' a decade ago. Their text examined a variety of relationship types that were argued as under-studied at the time. Under-studied relationship types that are showcased in the Wood and Duck text include long-lasting marriages, intercultural relationships, gay and lesbian relationships, working relationships and friendships, cohabiting relationships, long-distance relationships, and online relationships. Even less exists in the extant communication literature under the banner of 'non-normative relationships.' What became clear to me, and I suspect to the submitting authors and reviewers for this special issue, is that how one views what constitutes a 'non-normative' relationship lies in the eye of the beholder. During the journey of bringing this special issue to fruition, it became increasingly apparent that what one submitting author would perceive as 'non-normative' would be seen as 'normative' by a reviewer. And whereas some individuals during this process perceived 'non-normative' as being synonymous with 'under-studied,' other individuals noted that 'under-studied' and 'non-normative' were not necessarily one in the same. In sum, it appears as though some individuals define a 'normative relationship' by its prevalence or quantity (i.e., 'It's the norm'), whereas others acknowledge a relationship as 'normative' if it is recognized as acceptable or appropriate. In an effort to reconcile the discrepancy (or to illuminate the distinction), examples are articulated below that address the notions of (non)normativity and (under)studied. The difficulty in aligning the notions of 'normative' with 'studied' or 'non-normative' with 'under-studied' can be illustrated by examining the phenomenon of obesity. Indeed, various definitions of obesity exist as it has been characterized as both a disease and a condition in the literature and the popular press. Thus, how obesity is defined remains a matter of perspective. Some individuals might regard obesity as being 'non-normative' because they perceive it as an unacceptable and unhealthy way of being. Others, however, recognize obesity as normative in this day and age due to its prevalence in the United States where the majority of the population is defined as overweight, obese, or morbidly obese (Hedley, Ogden, Johnson, Carroll, Curtin, & Flegal, 2004). In fact, despite quantity and prevalence, obese individuals are typically stigmatized and perceived as 'deviant' (Drury & Louis, 2002). Interestingly, obesity is a phenomenon for which the majority does not rule. Many individuals do not want to see being over-weight or obese as normative, even if it is, and experience difficulty in reconciling the notion of normativity with prevalence or acceptability. Statistically speaking, being overweight or obese is the norm, yet this population remains understudied in the communication literature. The argument advanced above can also be applied to various relationships, such as online relationships. Whereas some scholars recognize online relationships as non-normative and non-authentic when compared to their face-to-face counterparts (e. …