While groups with pretensions to rebelliousness often value the lack of adherence to the norms of other social groups, they are in effect replaced by their own group's norms, which include the norm of rebelling against the other social groups' norms. If a subculture is in opposition to the macroculture, it obviously eliminates the possibility or normality completely, because what is normal in either culture is abnormal in the other.

But I'm getting on a tangent. Anyway, while normality is statistically improbable, if not impossible (not like I could know), that makes it exceptional, not abnormal. Normality is conforming to the standards of the social groups involved. The standards may not be representative of the majority of the group's constituents, however, which would make the majority abnormal.

'Course I'm not exactly sure how one defines a group's norms. For instance, it is expected that our elected leaders be representatives of the will of the people and act in their best interests, so if norms were the behaviours expected of a group, any politician to have used their position to enrich themselves or their friends to the people's detriment would be abnormal. Yet it seems normal to me. Maybe I'm mixing the precise and popular uses of the word normal then. I'll have to ask someone who knows better.