Hi all,
Hmmm.... that's an interesting post, Violet.
Social control, eh? I'm wondering if the kind of control you're talking about is an "organized" form of control. I know quite a few people you describe as having power and money who are just as ordinary as you or me and are as much on a quest for a self-defined identity as is any person on this forum. Could it be that this is another form of prejudice, this belief that those who are wealthy somehow act as puppetmasters for the rest of us? (And I say this as someone who's basically living from paycheck to paycheck.)
It seems to me it's too easy to see "plots" or "mechanisms of social control" only where our own identity politics will make us look for them. We forget that our own views are far from objective or neutral. I think yours is the best attitude, in that, regardless of who may or may not be pulling the strings, just damn the torpedoes and be who you know yourself to be. Of course, this is a hard road to walk, just because the social pressure to conform is extremely high. We see it in gays who want to appear straight, in crossdressers and transsexuals who want to appear as either women or men but not as both (or neither), and--perhaps more importantly but in a much more veiled fashion--in social groups (or sub-groups) that are fairly hermetic and exclusive but want to appear open and tolerant. After all, respect for diversity is all the rage, these days... as long as it's our kind of diversity and not the other guy's.
Most crossdressers do not pass in public; most crossdressers choose to remain hidden from public view. Is there a link between these two facts? Yes, I think so. As Kimberly stated, a joe in a skirt or a guy in a dress gets a resounding rebuff from all sides--from straights, from gays, and from other (passing) transgendered folks. Again, this is (mostly unconscious and internalized) social pressure to conform. In Freudian terms, the
superego usually wins out over the
id and all our wailing and gnashing of teeth is but the expression of our beloved
ego caught in the crossfire.
Is there a solution to this problem? No, in my opinion. Humans, being who and what they are, and if you have at least three people forming a group, you'll see two persons finding the third one weird or bizarre in some way. And that third one is apt to leave in order to go form her own group (thus perpetuating the cycle). The fact that this forum exists at all is proof of this. Call me a cynic, if you will, but I paint what I see. The trick is not to leave the group or to condemn its members, but to stay and to try to show the other members what the advantages are (both to them and to us) of valuing positively a certain eccentricity in an individual or a diversity in the group.
Those advantages are, to me, pretty plain to see; any person who is allowed to thrive as an individual will also thrive as a member of the society in which she lives. The workplace, for instance, is a microcosm that reflects this. I remember my days as a book and magazine store manager. I was successful at it (and the proof of this was in the increased sales) because I always strove to see my employees as whole-hearted individuals rather than as punch-clock drones. What are their talents? their likes and dislikes? their aptitudes and desires? what was going on in their personal lives that affected the time they spent at work? who did they want to be (or to become)? I addressed all these things head-on and assigned employees to tasks and projects that took all this into account. The result? Most were happy to come in to work and many, in fact, became devoted, going that extra mile to please--management, the public, each other, whatever--and this, despite the fact that I sometimes lost the battle with head office to have their wages increased.
Society "at large" sort of works like that, too. Value people as individuals; allow them to thrive as individuals; give them the opportunity to express their individuality in a context wider than themselves; your doing so will increase their happiness. There's little a happy person will not do for the group(s) to which she belongs. This is what the "normalizing" and intolerant segments of the population need to learn. Notice I said, "segments," not "majority"; I don't believe the majority of people are intolerant. Ignorant and/or unaware of certain social and psychological realities, maybe, but not intolerant. And people
can learn. It's one of the things human beings do best. So, call me an optimistic cynic, if you want. Just don't call me "Shirley."
This is a mighty fine thread. I like it very much.
Love,
CJ
This is also very true: "being insane is also an asset." Hmmm... I'm sure we must have a couple of Insane Gothik Divas on this board that would agree. 