find yourself, pt III

the final installation to this trilogy superficially touches a few broad questions on the never-ending high school stereotype, mainly - how, and why the system is preserved. for those who have not enjoyed the trilogy, rejoice, as i have just given away, this will be the last of my experimental efforts to write in this style. for those interested in seeing more (hopefully more refined) opinion pieces which follow an antithetical pattern, we'll see how i'm feeling about these things in the future.

in any case, 'how'. the answer is actually, in practice, quite simple. an inbred and familial establishment of hierarchy over the ages, with development and dependency on specific social, economical and (perhaps most importantly) psychological niche-roles. i'm not one for wishy-washy sentences (although i seem to use them repeatedly), so, let's break that down into something less generic. what i mean to say is, similar to political ideals, religious zealism, and philosophical doctrines (amongst other things), this is just another thought process. something that can be, and usually is, handed down to you on a no-questions-asked silver platter, wrapped in glittering stamp-of-authority christmas wrap, and (my favourite simile here!) before you pop it down your throat, realise that it is very superficially candy-coated with epic fail. much like the examples i have given, there may be, and i believe really is no reason for the implied rules of highschoolism to be there. where people and their social norms have changed, pre-set rules have not. it is an epistemic disease of the young, and fearful distraught of the old combined in unerring proportions, which results in respectively the shallow conformity and narrow-minded room for leeway in this system. indeed, as there is an exception to any rule, some of us will find ourselves castaways. outliers on a demographic plot that has catered to the niche-roles that, i believe, none of the individuals actually want, but are there as part of the greater good - of the hive.

more stereotyping here: the jock. the nerd. the cheerleader. and now with fotm flavours of the goth, the emo, and the marlon brando-in-streetcar. some may be derived from images we see in movies, others may be just intuitive. but really, where they come from is of less import than why are they here and what do they mean to do to (with) us? these aren't alien races who may come in peace or, alternatively, with the intention of defiling our every orifice with proboscis-like appendages. these are your friends. your brothers and your sisters. your parents and your children. your greatest enemies. as well as yourself. at least when viewed in others' minds eyes. why are they here? why are you here?

which has inadvertently lead to the second question of 'why'. why does society as a whole tolerate, nay, encourage such social segregation and labelling? not only does it settle for a fertile breeding ground for such fraternities, it also stamps out any defiling blight on its lush grounds - you and i. and this is the reason for such questioning. unique to any society; unlike such examples as political, economical, religious or artisitic tendencies; it seems that highschoolism runs rampant in all societies. when one talks with acquaintances from diverse backgrounds (such as when i entered university, and for the first time, met a transsexual from nepal), it is interesting to note that everyone (with no exceptions) can relate to conversations on and about how high school never ends. amazing. like rule 34 of social studies. wait, rule 1 and 2. now.

i guess, that's a pretty good way to end this entry. with a reference to 'that which shall not be spoken of'. no, not that one. in any case, just something to ponder - highschoolism. is it really a phenomenon? or do some of us (mostly the minorities) create it to get away with sh*t ass luck? do such rules really exist, or is this the modern day equivalent of seppuku, when one has failed the duty of social acceptance?