(no subject)

[realexplodingcat]

I was posting this in a comment to someone else. But my comment exceeded the limit allowed for comments. So, I post it here. Basically, the post to which I was commenting spawned some food for thought.


Sad, but true. Society does often have less tolerance for external manifestations of internal eccentricities. Of course, it is often said of serial killers, "he seemed so normal, so much like everyone else." So, society ought to learn that external eccentricities are not always an accurate sign of someone you ought to shun.

Personally, I am a strong advocate of Knowing Thyself and then Being Thyself. This is a job that is never done, because the Self is always a moving target. But this is what I have always striven to do. I suppose this is easy for me to say, because my Self has always demanded to be shown to the Public as fairly Normal with only a dash of Weird here and there. The only thing that hurts me is a tendency for introversion...but perhaps this also helps me because I'm not always comfortable externalizing my eccentricities (and there are a lot of them). Consequently, it is fairly easy for me to be myself and operate in normal society. However, I do not believe that everybody has this luxury. Not everyone can accept and be themselves and fit into the narrow range of possibilities that is readily accepted by society.

As a counter-argument question: where do you draw the line when altering external expressions of Self? Only to what can be controlled? Someone born into an ethnic minority has very little choice about their external differences. Likewise, certain disabilities may not be changed or hidden. These people suffer discrimination due to characteristics over which they do not have a choice.

A grey area: being gay. I am convinced that homosexuality is determined by genetics as much as someone's appearance due to an ethnic heritage. However, this deviance (which is often considered unacceptable) is easy to hide. But why should it be hid? Heterosexuals constantly display their orientation in subtle ways, whether it's holding hands in public or just telling you what they did with their immediate family last weekend. If you're gay, you can choose to hide these subtle messages and always have a degree of un-comfortableness about yourself. Or you can be yourself, and try not to worry about the other people who might notice.

I suppose the difference with people who purposely look weird is that there probably isn't a genetic predisposition to being a goth or punk. So, why would you choose to look like that when you do not have to? I, for one, believe that it is just as valid an expression of Self as the above examples of people who don't have a choice over their appearance. While people may have a choice over how they dress, they generally don't have a choice over who their Self is. If their Self demands an eccentric external expression, so be it. That is a Self that is willing to accept the consequences, if any. I also think it's doing a disservice to people who don't have a choice about their appearance if all of us who do have a choice purposefully deny our selves so that we look Normal. Society can change. History has shown us that it has. It just takes a damn long time, sometimes. Consider the social norms of the 50s compared with today. I'd look like a complete outcast in the 50s, whereas today society has loosened up enough to accept my long hair and predilections for darker shades of color in my office attire. I was wearing a black suit, combat boots, and long hair to the interview for my current job. I probably wouldn't wear the combat boots again in such a situation now, but that was me then. But I believe change can happen. And I believe some people have a calling to be different, and they should answer that call. Because there are still too many prejudices in society.

I just wanted to offer a different opinion. Now, after having said all that. I do think I understand what you're trying to say about yourself. You are clearly a changed man from the one you were several years ago. Consequently, it is your duty to express that. And I think you're doing a fine job. As for other folks? Maybe they do not want the same things as you or I. Maybe they are still exploring and learning who they are. I won't try to make the distinction. But, perhaps, in time those who don't know themselves, will. And those that already do know themselves, should continue to be themselves.

Comments

[quasigeostrophy.livejournal.com]

This is a job that is never done, because the Self is always a moving target.

I was noodling to myself about this the other day. I've come to the conclusion that I know certain things about myself, but every time I try to draw up some picture and say "this is me", I react to some new stimulus in a way I don't expect, and/or I think about my behavior in a recent situation and come up with an analysis that is off the wall.

Anyway, I like the way you phrased that point.

[explodingcat.livejournal.com]

I wonder what we could accomplish if we were born with a built-in knowledge of self. Sometimes it seems we spend most of our time figuring out who we are. What a cruel situation. Then again, maybe we'd be bored without the ability to make discoveries about ourselves.

[javafiend.livejournal.com]

This is an issue that has much concerned me. I had suffered from a small crisis of conscience when I changed how I dressed to avoid persecution/ possible expulsion after Columbine. I didn't think that was a choice I should have been forced to make, though at the same time, I wasn't willing to get thrown out of school over clothes.

I, for one, believe that it is just as valid an expression of Self as the above examples of people who don't have a choice over their appearance.
One could argue that the subcultural "dress code" has as much to do with maintaining solidarity with their group as an expression of self. The nuances of goth dress/ musical taste/ personality don't come together entirely naturally. People that look the part, but don't listen to the right music or vice versa tend to feel pressure to accept more acceptible genre alternatives. I haven't been able to decide whether that changes the validity of self-expression via appearance.

More thoughts possibly forthcoming.

[explodingcat.livejournal.com]

As humans, as innately social creatures, I think it's probably impossible to completely extricate one's self from the process of "maintaining solidarity with (a) group." Consequently, I think there can be a fine line between self expression and following the nuances of a particular group. There is often going to be a long tradition behind whatever method you choose to express yourself, whether you're aware of it or not. And it will affect your choices, because we don't live in a vacuum.

The discussion took an interesting turn in the journal to which I was originally responding. The true argument is more about behavior/moral development, rather than choice of appearance. It's just that your choice of appearance can often reflect your mode of behavior/stage of moral development.

[oberstgreup.livejournal.com]

Good points, but as usual, I'll take an argument. (Unusually enough, not with krues8dr.)

So, why would you choose to look like that when you do not have to?

Why, indeed? For most countercultural and subcultural expressions since the 1960's, a major point of attraction for the look has been precisely because it demonstrated a rejection of mainstream values and hence a deliberate courting of rejection and opprobrium by the mainstream in turn - it demonstrates one's bona fides in the counterculture; one cannot sell out if one has burned one's bridges by making one's image unmarketable. But you cannot simultaneously adopt a style that represents as powerful a sartorial message as it is possible to scream to the effect of "Take your day job and your house in the suburbs and your minivan and your wife and 2.3 kids and shove'em up your ass with a twist!", and at the same time whine that the exact people at whom the message is directed have the gall to act offended!

I, for one, believe that it is just as valid an expression of Self as the above examples of people who don't have a choice over their appearance.

What does valid mean in this context, though? "Valid" for what purpose? Does accepting the equal "validity" of all choices mean eschewing all taste? Is it a prejudice to recognize that ugly ties are ugly, or that ill-fitting clothes look shabbier than properly fitted ones? Or that black tends to be slimming, and old sweat-stains on a white shirt are just plain nasty?

And is it truly as "valid" an expression of one's (capitalized) Self? In what sense? Many people would say that even things such as race and sexuality are transcended by the Self, but such beliefs aside, it is indisputable that no one hits age 25 and outgrows being black or gay. Can the same be said for wearing green mohawks and Bella Morte t-shirts? Do you think you can defend the proposition that these things are as much expressions of Self as they are matters of mutable taste, changed on a whim?

And if not, what does this say about their "validity"? After all, Ralph Nader took the Corvair off the market, and I'm sure many people identified that car as strongly with their Self as much anyone now does with bands like Bella Morte.

And I would caution against trivializing real issues such as racial discrimination by comparing them to non-issues such as goth kids getting dirty looks on the Mall. The cause is different, the basis for the "discrimination" is different, and the extent of the discrimination is radically different; the effect of the comparison is only to make the person drawing it appear insensitive to the extent of the real problems in the former instance.

While people may have a choice over how they dress, they generally don't have a choice over who their Self is. If their Self demands an eccentric external expression, so be it. That is a Self that is willing to accept the consequences, if any.

Are they? Then what's the complaint? Isn't the problem that people make the expression but aren't willing to accept the consequences, instead charging everyone else with ignorance and prejudice in an attempt to have those consequences removed?

[explodingcat.livejournal.com]

Taking on an argument is actually quite atypical of me. But I had a weird urge to play devil's advocate this afternoon. I made some additional comments to krues8dr's comment that (I hope) further clarified my position. I think he and I are in agreement over what the original post really boils down to: every person has a duty to themselves to improve themselves (the benefits of this will also spill over into society). Goth/punk fashion only gets mixed up in this because there is a high correlation between people who insist on maintaining an aggressively alternative appearance and people who do not evolve and improve themselves. To see my opinion on people who probably fit both categories, I refer you to my comment about the moral stages of development under krues8der's post. I'm not arguing for them. My argument is defending the position of the rare people who reach moral maturity, can happily operate in society, but still feel they would betray themselves if they stopped dressing themselves as a nonconformist. So, consider them as the people of which I speak, not angsty spookykids. Of course, with that in mind, maybe my original comment is unnecessary because krues8der may have been directing his argument specifically at angsty spookykids.

Does accepting the equal "validity" of all choices mean eschewing all taste?
I readily admit to taking an idealist position, warning against the acceptance of a narrow range of choices for fear that the trend could lead to a further narrowing of choices in the future. True, my fear of a future in which only one style of tie is available is (hopefully) just as silly as the notion of accusing someone of prejudice for not liking another person's ugly tie when so many others are available.

Do you think you can defend the proposition that these things are as much expressions of Self as they are matters of mutable taste, changed on a whim?
Now that you're forcing me to think more about it (thank you), I must make a distinction between expressions of self that can change and those that cannot (like ethnicity). I even said so in my comment, that knowing yourself is always a moving target. So, certain aspects of one's self will change over time, and likewise the expression of that self. But some things may not change. My idealized mature goth just might never grow out of the green mohawk and Bella Morte t-shirts. Stranger things have happened, I'm sure. They might look weird when they're 80 years old, but I would be highly amused and appreciative of such diversity in octogenarians.

And I would caution against trivializing real issues such as racial discrimination by comparing them to non-issues such as goth kids getting dirty looks on the Mall. The cause is different, the basis for the "discrimination" is different, and the extent of the discrimination is radically different; the effect of the comparison is only to make the person drawing it appear insensitive to the extent of the real problems in the former instance
Perhaps a bit of a cop out, but as I've already stated here I'm not talking from the point of view of angsty kids. As for the comparison, perhaps the person drawing it is actually overly sensitive to discrimination of any kind...perhaps to a fault.

Isn't the problem that people make the expression but aren't willing to accept the consequences, instead charging everyone else with ignorance and prejudice in an attempt to have those consequences removed?
If you're talking about the angsty kids, yes they have no right to complain. They do engage in the game of pushing people away, then being angry at the consequences. I'm more interested in the mature adults who live an alternative lifestyle and who accept, and work within, the limitations society places on them because of their lifestyle.