Mayarra, you ask tough questions.
To me, the closer you examine these concepts, the fuzzier they get.
Let’s start with normalcy. It seems very difficult to pin down what it really means. To me, it is a concept for which there is an idealized notion but no actual exemplars in the real world. That is, assuming we are specifically talking about human beings and not widgets.
Actually, I need to digress for a moment, to tell you about a word I invented a long time ago. It hasn’t really caught on, but it’s a great word and it is useful in this case.
The word is “obvuto”. It’s a kind of truth-value. But not a boolean, exclusively either true or false value. Instead, it describes a statement or concept that we can consider true, but only on the condition that we understand how it is also false, or a flawed concept.
Normalcy is an obvuto concept, in my opinion. We can agree to say that it is true that some person is normal, for example, but if we examine them very closely, we will almost certainly discover that they are abnormal in some way.
Very often, we might end up doing something funny with our definition of normal: we might agree that it is normal to be abnormal, and say things like, “if you aren’t a bit abnormal, then you really aren’t normal.” I think we might even find it slightly amusing to say that. But anyway, that is often what happens with obvuto concepts.
What about equality? I assume you mean social equality. That’s also an interesting word. One interesting observation is that we tend to talk about it as though it is one thing. But, IMO, in any discussion about any person’s life, when we say equality, we act like we are talking about equality in one dimension, but we are almost always speaking of a multidimensional concept. The result is that we often end up getting very confused.
An example I remember with my first wife was an argument that we got into that I could not understand at the time. The short story is that a couple friends of mine had suggested we go on a hunting weekend–just us guys. (To be honest, I have no interest in hunting, but I guess it would have been a dude bonding thing.) When I mentioned it to my wife, she seemed a bit hurt and upset that she couldn’t come. She said it wasn’t fair.
To resolve the unfairness aspect, I explained that it was fair because I would go with my guy friends and she could go have a similar weekend with her girl friends. In my mind at the time (I know, I know…I was being a moron), I thought that solved the problem, because if I was free to go away with my buddies and she could go away with her girl friends, then that was the very definition of equality.
Anyway, we got divorced.
I don’t think it was over that particular fight, but that argument puzzled me for a long time. I couldn’t understand why she was so mad at me. (BTW, I didn’t actually go on the trip.) As far as I could tell with my logical guy brain, I was behaving very well. I was treating her as an equal: I certainly did not try to give myself any privileges unless she had the same privilege.
Anyway, fast forward a few years and I think I finally understood. She was upset more because equality for her had to do with sharing and demonstrating closeness in a more fair or equal way. I think my actions were a problem for her because I seemed to be the one who always exercised the power to decide when we would be close and when we would be apart.
Not sure if my story was clear, but I am trying to say that closeness-distancing was a dimension of equality that I did not even perceive. I only thought of equality on one dimension. Maybe if I understood that it happens on more than one dimension, I might have understood why she was so angry with me that time.
Regarding your last question, “Can the two (normalcy and equality) be seen separate in society?”, I don’t really understand the question. Is it something you can explain further?