Loserdom: affection, attention and ascension/attention attraction and attribution
Being a loser comes with a status symbol. A loser though has some variety between adolescence and adulthood. Yet there is still a common theme of perception and expectation. Those who do not fit the mould are ostracised actively. It is a childish tease from the lacking result. At the same time is more a repressed entrenched social desire than an ontological problem.
Losers in high school are generally the un-athletic nerdy kids. Cinematic reprisals based on binary generality constructed two archetypes: the brains versus the brawn. One either has one or the other. Stereotypes mingle into appearances and abilities. In the high school model brawn beats out brains. The cool kids are not the smart ones. While there is much more of a spectrum in this regard, there is an association given capabilities. The goal isn’t to psychoanalyse but to recognise social trends. Cinema may resort to black and white constructions but this isn’t far from society’s contemporary presentations. From boomers anti-communist agenda to gen z’s social justice supremacy. Both groups look at the world in good and evil. There is overlap but the lack of grey and middle ground is less a polarised policy and more an ideological monism. Cinematic portrayals are not entirely incorrect. Nor are they sentimental propaganda. Influential but there is a generational feeling that is only boosted by cinematic exposure.
This popularity contest is not a modern phenomenon. It is an age old measure. It is a nefarious attempt to passively exclude those different. The out-group was intuitively disbarred and actively persecuted. Yet the in-group is not entirely uniform. The in-group has certain laws but maintains the peace for the national identity. Meaning if we are both American or both religious it is improper to oust said individual but to ignore them is customary. A devilish exclusion due to missing the mark. The custom of the land is for the in-group to suggestively follow. Yet the suggestion is very much an expectation. Given the immaturity of children their decision-making is more verbally abusive than physically tormenting. This is not a universal rule but demonstrates a non violent passive deterioration. A way of curtailing authority trouble with constructing a cult. Easier to leave out an individual than shove him aside.
Loserdom is a reminder to the recipient that he is unwarranted. Constant barrage of his lower status. There is little positive attention displayed. Just flurry of insults to their character and general appearance. They do not fit the perceived mould. It is the outlier in the pack. The pack cannot rid this individual so they tease to remind him of his place. He is at the bottom of the pyramid. His antics are irregular to the general public. It is all about being different than companions. Whether that be appearance, orientation and religiosity. It mightily attacks the person for who they are. A loser not necessarily of what they did but for who they are. Since they are unable to meet the social standards they are passively ostracised. The loser remains in the school as the prey of the more popular students. A deer in the jungle of lions. Defenceless against the myriad attacks from all sides. Unable to fit the social standard they are repressed into a hierarchy. A social standing that is decided by a student-wide acceptance of places in the school’s hierarchy.
It is completely insidious the apparent necessary credentials to be considered popular or higher up on the hierarchy. So much so that there is a term for becoming popular deceptively coined a social climber. Cinema has aided in depicting the popular attributes but there is an acceptance generationally of brawn superseding brains. Even in the social mould, the popularity pyramid would fall if people objected. Hierarchies only persist because people buy into them. Yet there is a difference between accepting a larger power and allowing that larger power to obtain more power than intended. It is not a blank check, there is accountability. Just because something exists somewhere one way does not mark it as the correct model elsewhere. A frame is systemically imposed by the students. It just is. Thinking about the star quarterback dating the lead cheerleader. There is a common trope that demands social adherence. It is an inherited status.
Power here is a social status based on looks and ability. Power creates the matrix. There is destiny involved and better to accept position in the social ladder. While it may get better after high school enduring the torment is part of life. There is a need to escape the difficult dilemma. Bullying and verbal condensation will not be easily avoided. The biggest problem is not only the popular jokers but the bystanders. Those bystanders are somewhere in the middle of pyramid. Unwilling to get involved avoiding hurting their own self image. If the popular go after you, you are in trouble. Your reputation is at stake. Even if one tries to change themselves, the bully may find an alternative route of hurling insults. One solution is to take the fight to popular authority. Defeating the matrix is accomplished by deserting it or overhauling it. Finding the skeletons of the popular drama can give the loser an immense advantage. While popular kids may spin it against the loser, the loser holds the cards.
Yet the other way is to ignore and build one’s own model. Attacked for character, motivates a new direction. A way around the daring systemic intro. A newfound vision away from the systemic order. It may be the bullied are unable to attain the bully’s status and thus opt for a new version. This is akin to Nietzschean master-slave dialectic. The creation of slave morality is due to the latter’s inability to attain the power of the master. The haunting reality culminates in a reversed vision. Revolution seeks to mete out all the disorder. A way out of the matrix and into a coordinated uplifting future.
Whether through violent revolution or escape, both discharge a loserdom unfit to meddle with masterful intent. The top-down order is critically overpowering in its deeply underrated powerful stump. The loser is not only ignored by the popular but also the bystanders remaining in the middle ground. The greatest threat is not the peakers looking down at the stragglers but the fifth place finalists punching down. The popular group stand their ground in their exclusivist paradigm while everyone else falls in line. The popular kids generate an imagined community. One that preexists the incoming freshman year. The paradigm is in place. People need fill into their sections. Funnelling into their spaces in the hierarchy is dominated by connections and capabilities. If attributes mesh with others whether from loyal pre- schooling or unique charm. Loserdom may incur from displaced attributes or from distanced exposure. Clicks emerge and group ever tighter. There is a proactive access to entering the popular group late, the exclusion may have less to do with personality and more to do with connectivity.
There is malleability to move between the groups. Influencing the exclusive group to accept is more or less a connection whereby skills are showcased whether in sports or chemistry. There is no one size fits all. There are common traits of humour built and extraverted but it is not uniform. Someone of that caliber may be excluded due to his newness or social awkwardness. Sometimes it’s a feeling or jealousy. A crew consists of contingent continuous experiences. Even a new member from the first look may seem like a good fit but after a few hangouts may be undesirable as an additional member. Those who were initially rejected may fail to retry to enter the group. Even with growth through high school. An indifference or a dogmatic denigration. The popular group may not care for the changes still regarding the former loser as an eternal loser.
To be rejected for not meeting standards to need to fit those standards is the reason for newly devout groups. While other groups may be considered at the bottom of the totem poll, sufficient alignment with the group will encompass new self confidence. External pressure is irrelevant. Accepting place in the pecking order has its faults and its goods. Preconceived models will persist but the loser can undoubtably be the maverick hybrid. The nerdy individual may bolster his basketball skill and women’s skills with little acceptance. Yet he can live his life without concern for others. His novelty is outlawed. Even his former friends cannot understand his escape. He is a loner finding his footing. While he may find peers. He may have friends and excel but fail to entrench himself in any group. He is alone in his own inner world even if externally fondled over. It is a measure of socially constructed otherness. Escape is genuinely through an inverse intersectionality. Becoming a pluralistic attribution. Able to ace tests, drill threes and get girls.
Becoming part of the cooler group is a trek but it is ever more difficult to rid the old club. Solo loserdom is trying to eclipse introverted entertainment while group loserdom is abandoning other friends. Pressure from the popular gang will endorse a new recruit if he deserts his primal friends. The classic chick-flick from loser to stardom. The former friends feel betrayed and when she finally realises her mistake and tries to win them back over. Her brush with popularity impassions acceptance losing her true diversity. Folding into their frame requires denouncing the diversified credibility. Standards much be met. Slowly she habituates to the popular style away from her own identity. They snatch her up and attempt to bring back in line through high-class privilege. The former loser must resist their advance. All her work to be her own woman of many talents will be for nought. To be her true self she must remain a loser.
One man’s loser may be another man’s hero. The multitalented ethos may diverge a new trend. The old may colossally fall into oblivion. He may lead the new group. Yet even at the top of the hierarchy will he be the rule legislator or a beacon to adore. His new trend may be followed by many cultivating in a nuanced paradigm shift. How he handles it will muster a shift in future progress. It is possible to break from the hierarchy of popularity. Are the innocently passionate good-willed founders liable for future abuse? Trendsetting is a highly accountable position yet it is the staple of not just one man but his followers that is necessary. Forethought to the potential stumbling blocks ahead. He will endorse a new perspective, a novelty from the cruel exclusivity but will his defection garner a shifting standard with the same demerits? The more valued experience will hopefully overrule the structural affinities. Just because one simpleton eclipsed the binary does not mean others will, unfortunately.
No comments:
Post a Comment