Social Norms - A farce

Has it ever occurred that days go by supposedly unproductive because to the perceiver the “acceptable standards” as to living a day well spent weren’t met?

Normal. Read the word out aloud and it resonates nothing but the feeling of plain and simplistic. Is that then what people strive to be…? The existence of a life so diverse and complex should be reduced to something so contrite? A day well spent to me would be one where the mind works endlessly questioning reasons of life, reaching somewhat satisfying conclusions, thus, progressing in a manner of speaking. It doesn’t necessarily mean having accomplished a towering feat in the field of work, society or whatsoever.

I then come to questioning what is perceived as ‘bad’ or more broadly ‘unacceptable’. Think of the term and a list of personalities such as psychopaths, pedophiles, liars, thieves to list a few enter one’s mind. But what I’d rather question is the basis as to this classification. This is not to say that being any one of these is to be considered a good characteristic, but, the fact that cause and effect does exist in every manner of speaking. It’s easy to point a finger at Hitler and comment as to the monstrosities he committed to, but, what would be indeed profound would be rather to understand the psyche behind this troubled state. Life if simply classified in black and white would not hold as many difficulties, what is to be carefully analysed is not the existence of these, but, the shades of grey often overlooked where both converge.

Why do I speak of the defaulter in such a manner as though he/she instead is the victim? Simply for the reason that when one has been exposed to such matters in life without education regarding its effects and guidance, the tendency is to accept these matters and ideologies as norms, and they in turn become a way of life. It is thus interesting to observe that the thief had once been stolen from, the sexual offender was perhaps once abused…the psychopath was educated in an oppressive environment.

The multiplier effect often referred to in the economic sense to me holds good then in education and human emotions additionally. A single act committed by one becomes a pay it forward and soon spreads without being curbed. Hence, for that reason, I find it of grave importance to connect the dots to the source and help in adopting a sound philosophy. The fact that someone is indeed diabolical is then questionable, for in almost every situation, each action is an outcome of an array of wrongs. Strange then how a chain reaction can be triggered from an action that negatively affects the person. The human brain interestingly has a 10% capacity to make rational decisions. The rest 90% capacity is just a storehouse. It’s the subliminal arena and interestingly retains the negative messaging over the years. Though it doesn’t have to its credit the power in decision making, it does enjoy what is known as top-of-the-mind recall. In such a situation, when a person is exposed to a similar situation, for the virtue that it has been stored, the individual tends to relate to the problem. So…where does the problem arise? Often problems of victims to such situations go unaddressed, thus, a lack of closure leads them to gain a distorted outlook on the same. Often, in seek to reverse the roles and in turn outweigh the scales so that control is in their favour, they themselves commit to such acts.

Even more interesting, if analysed is the fact that most people considered as outcasts by social norms were indeed exceptional philosophers of great repute. Read their works and you gain a deep insight into matters of life. John Ruskin was questioned to be a pedophile, Oscar Wilde was shunned due to his active role in the aesthetic and decadent movement, Socrates was considered by pockets as unlawful due to his homosexuality, and not forgetting the ‘world’s greatest lover’ Casanova looked upon with disdain due to his reputation as a womanizer. Does this then mean that those considered as outcasts indeed were so due to the fact that the acts they conformed to weren’t considered as normal. This then leads to the next logical question, then, that whether what is not considered as normal and looked upon wearily, often profane, is indeed so due to the nature of its unfathomable marvel. People over time have been seen to reject all that is not stereotypically ‘nice’ and ‘safe’ thus isolating evolving ideologies, oppressing unconventional philosophies, eventually forcing the birth of rebellious movements. Isn’t it but natural then to think that this in turn would result in a chain reaction? The matter of irony here though lies in the fact that in building walls of norms and shunning those matters that don’t conform to it, one in turn forces a situation where safety ceases to exist.

A simple question: which colour then would you find more appealing – black or white? The former typically programmed in one’s mind with a deep association with all that’s bad or the latter considered to be a sign of purity? Would it be reasonable then to draw conclusions based on a person’s choice of these colours and simply decide characteristics based on superficial facades? I personally prefer neither...my favourite would inarguably be red...where then do i fall in these preconceived notions...? :)