Has anyone noticed that the term ‘the new normal’ is appearing in more and more articles and media. And if we’re looking at definitions why use the term the ‘new normal’ instead of simply abnormal?
This video, beginning with a short clip from the film 1984 demonstrates how often it’s used in the US. Is it used a lot in UK media?
To use the the ‘new-normal’ prefatory and slightly nannyish response to your question, Louise: “That’s a very good question, Louise”!
So… (to use another slightly irritating ‘new normal’ utterance that shows signs, mercifully of gradual decline in usage)…
My answer is, it could be seen as slightly sinister, but it is, I think, intended to get people used to the obvious: that 'things are going to change round here, better get used to the idea folks; for better or worse life is going to be very different from here-on out .
And the message in the bottle reads: "It’ s up to you, to me, to us how it turns out. So get ready to pull on your oar and contribute to the direction of travel, where we’re all headed, and when we can hope to reach the promised land, the longed-for land of peace and prosperity world-wide
It signals change and challenge, and opportunity, and is a call to collective action. At least that’s my interpretation, my resolve, and my hope. Let’s not squander it. Allons enfants de la patrie !
Yes it’s appearing all over the place…
Not forgetting that our future will one day be the new past!
Hi Peter and many thanks for your opinion. To be honest the video gave me the creeps.
The clips from current news media ‘new normal’, displaying flagrant abuse of power juxtaposed with clips from the films “1984” and “I am Legend” are a little too close to comfort for me. But maybe I’m just a little too easily shocked.
Obviously the meaning of 'normal’is fluid or mutable, so I find current use of the phrase, ‘new normal’ is OK provided it’s not over-employed in the context of C-19 clickbait journalism (which offers to explain everything, but explains little).
IMO US english is far richer, inventive and appealingly descriptive, so one can be fairly certain that ‘the new normal’ will become a ‘new normal’ journalistic phrase:subject on this side of the Atlantic. But English is a living llingua franca and American contributions are not necessarily a bad thing. Verbs can effectively become nouns and vice versa. It might surprise Brits to know that the language of baseball sports journalism has many more specialist terms and phrases than that of cricket.
I read the NY Times and the Guardian every morning (Le Monde and Huff Post France are also skimmed) and I find the quality of the NYT’s journalists and correspondents writing is far higher that that of the UK press, even though they may use NY neologisms that jar on an anglo ear, and even always courteously refer to Trump as ‘Mr’ Trump (which begs the question, do Americans not really ‘understand irony’?). Lastly, for the pedants, the NYT’s grammatical sub-editing is much sharper than that of the Grauniad.
I agree with that. It seems to me that it consists of 18th century English, overlaid with contributions from the many other nationalities who make up the modern American people. Although they gave up their own languages they retained their way of thinking and humour that all contributed to the way they speak today.
Perhaps that also explains why much of the best modern literature comes from the USA and why the majority of foreigners choose to learn American English rather than the British version.
Depends on what you read and call ‘Literature’ I suppose. I think JK Rowling must be up there in UK Literature? plus the likesof Patricia and Bernard Cornwell? George R R Martin certainly in the USA, and the old favorites of Ludlum and Clancy stand out, but my own collection of books doesn’tshow a preponderance of US popular literature. I will accept that there are seemingly more published writers out of the uSA, but alot of these are basic copies of other writers.
I certainly do not agree that the usage of American versus English language has very much to do with readng but with the Hollywood dominance of films. In the twelve countries I lived in the vast majority of films shown were of American origin and/or where American bases overwhelmed the local culture - the Philippines being the supreme example.
Probably also the general debasing of the language in my opinion comes from the US with the persistent, repetitious and unnecessary use of foul language which seems to have infected English usage as well.
There’s no way of knowing, Norm, but I’d guess the spoken language has always been as replete with four-letter words, foul and fair, as it is now. It’s likely that there’s just a lot more talking dirty because there’s more of us doing it. 
I certainly agree that the NYT and Herald have exceptionally high standards of writing.
The ‘Newspeak’ reference I made was referring to the Orwellian term and aimed at highlighting how the insidious use of language is used with the aim of coercing, progressively brainwashing and confusing people so that highly questionable practices and ideas become reality. Orwell noticed this during WWII job at the BBC.
This article covers much of what I wanted to say.
A few examples of terms used that are daily becoming acceptable due to coercive language techniques employed by media.
Confinement or imprisonment?
Social distancing or individual distancing /enforced antisocial behaviour?
Sustainable economy or suppression of companies considered ‘unnecessary’ thanks to media coercion.
New normal = abnormal or any radical change to the way daily life is normally led / had been led.
Koyaanisqatsi = “life out of balance” / “calling for a new way of being” (Hopi Indian language)
You could make the same ‘imprisonment’ claim for seat-belts in cars or aircraft, or ‘no smoking’ notices on public transport.
No more than ten persons in a lift/elevator: “enforced anti-social behaviour”?
Both would be patent nonsense IMO.
Thanks Peter. Of course ‘the way life is normally led’ is very open to interpretation.
An elevator is limited normally by weight and logical. The wearing of a seatbelt is effectively for one’s own personal safety. No smoking in public transport is also logical as smoke (from all sources) is a known carcinogen.
Thank you too, Louise. You exemplify best practice when it comes to on-line conversations, if I may make so bold as to thus express myself. 
And your reply to mine gives me cause to wonder why you seem to see a problem with terms like social distancing and confinement, neither of which seem to be other than explicit and necessary in the current serious cirumstances.
And those enterprises that describe themselves or their products as ‘luxury or luxurious’ can’t at the same time claim to be essential. The distinction is pretty obvious to my mind.
Your thoughts on these poor musings will be welcome.
Speaking out against newspeak…
“By virtue of this you keep anaethetizing the minds through the corrupted mass media disinfectants and NLP…”
Hi Helen, 
and many thanks. Yes I’d heard about Bill Gates too 
I haven’t seen the video yet but will watch it this afternoon.
But it’s only what they have learned from the advertising industry and people have been falling for that as long as I can remember.
Here are just a few examples -
Up to = Less than.
Must end Saturday = New sale starts Monday.
Only = We want you to think it’s cheap.
New = Not necessarily better than what you already have.
Kills 99% = but not necessarily the 1% that can kill you.
I could go on. . . . .
comment withdrawn due to feeling slightly overwhelmed……
Ray Bradbury
Davis Grubb
Ken Kesey
Harper Lee
Bernard Malamud
Cormac McCarthy
Tony Morrison
E. Annie Proulx
Philip Roth
J D Salinger
John Steinbeck
Anne Tyler
Kurt Vonnegut
By no means a complete list, but picked out with a glance at my collection of paperbacks.
Better get reading, you have missed out on some great works!
Rowling is an admirable human being and has done much to encourage children to read books, but I just couldn’t get into it. Tolkien doesn’t do anything for me either. Bit like Marmite!