Quote:
Here's something I just don't understand. Looking back at being a kid I was the one in my classes who in adulthood ended up with a diagnosis of AS. So, I'm kind of impaired, right? Yet, I was also the only one who wouldn't pick on others, who would be deliberately be kind to the kids who were getting bullied, because I couldn't stand the injustice of it. So how on earth was I 'wrong' while everyone else was 'right', 'typical', 'normal'? They were right for keeping their social position and credentials, were they? I don't understand - it doesn't make any sense!
It doesn't make any sense when viewed through the lens of a strict and highly personal moral code of conduct and related entirely justifiable (on grounds of morality, social equality or natural justice and fair play) logical/ethical personal standards of engagement.
It does make sense when you view the situation through the lens that applies to the laws of the (human) jungle, as best typified in the never-ending and ever-changing allegiances, enmities and perpetually unstable tendency towards social hierarchies and pecking orders, with a few stable of top of this pyramid of social acceptability, a larger section relatively secure in the middle and a generally ignored or actively hated bottom-tier of pupils.
What's objectively and/or arguably and/or justifiably 'right' is not usually generally applicable in such complex and formative (and typically, except for the severest incursions against the prevailing unwritten and unevenly-applied (or possibly only partially or wholly unregulated) adult-imposed standards of behaviour expected to be chiefly displayed in the supposedly-structured learning environment, rather than the regular episodes of largely unsupervised chaos that such institutions usually refer to as 'break-times') socially-interactive circumstances, in which the bad are rarely punished, the good are rarely rewarded and the innocent are invariably abused (at best).
It will not have escaped your attention that the three-fold pyramidal model I have imposed -- with some justification -- upon the hierarchy of pupil relationships is not unlike Freud's hypothetical triune system of consciousness, in which the reigning superego dictates social expectations and standards, the subordinate ego seeks to justify its own desires within the framework imposed by the superego, and the remaining socially-unacceptable desires and characteristics comprising the lower third, the unconscious or 'Id' is brutally and systematically suppressed and kept in check by (in case the contents of that lowest layer should ever break free of its suppression and overthrow the 'civilised' orders of consciousness that are reflected in) the combined interactions of the two socially-adaptive and perceived superior classes of consciousness.
What is less often remarked upon is that Freud, the frustrated and outcast bourgeoisie, had imposed (perhaps unconsciously, which would be supremely ironical) the classical threefold and characteristically pyramidal social class divisions (and the three classes' supposedly unconsciously self-organising and therefore inherent distinctions as desirable or undesirable agents of potential social change and upheaval and/or forces of imposed and lasting social stability) that were theoretically identified by Freud as a recurring characteristic in the more-durable examples of historical human civilisations in general, as exemplified in the psychoanalyst's personal (and again, quite possibly wholly or partially unconsciously) perceptions of, and consequent (conscious or not) humanly-justifiable desire for assimilation into, the strict structural stability of Freud's wholeheartedly-adopted and attempted readjustment to Viennese society.
So what I'm saying, I suppose, is that what might appear right is merely a personal understanding, limited by desires for orderly conduct within your section of the social pyramid.
These desires are (unconsciously) taken as exemplified by the upper two layers of the pyramid, but more so from the immediately-contiguous but slightly less densely-populated middle section of the pyramid, who in turn merely and largely unwittingly pass on to the substratum their limited and highly socially-adjusted understandings and/or perceptions of the social life and standards and expectations among the pyramid-tip of the elite.
So you can look at relevative perceptions of right and wrong from a strictly personal viewpoint of neutral and socially-just morality and/or justice as it should be equally applied in an idealised flattened and level (but certainly non-pyramidal) social structure, wherever you perceive yourself (with due consideration to your consciously and or unconsciously held social standards and expectations) to lie within the three successive layers of that three-dimensional framework.
Or you can look at what's right and wrong in terms of the respective not always (or even occasionally, depending on prevailing social circumstances at any given moment) inherently equitable, justifiably, socially-independent or fair (and not always consistent, due to competing influences from the two superior social tiers of the pyramid) standards and or expectations of those around you, judge yourself (not without reason) to be in the bottom and largest 'third' of the societal hierarchy and thenceforth aspire to emulate and ultimately blend undetectably with those socially adjudged to be your superiors, and aspire to the standards (and hopefully, the justifiable social expectations) of the next level of social stratum (or eventually, the perceived near-total liberty and the exercise of some degree of the ulitimate but almost invisible and imperceptible social power of those who make up the topmost (and smallest) pyramidal 'capstone').
You can either adjust to your hard-won and newfound place in each stratum of society as you work your way up through them (and to their unexpected and various inherent subdivisions, which no-one can explain to you), ideally taking a well-deserved rest when you finally reach the top tier (and take a hard-won sneer down at the rest of the unenlightened pyramid inhabitants who are now below you).
Or you can carry your characteristic sense of social justice and equitable treatment and notions of fair-play with you like an armoury of concealed weapons, either scattering them as social grenades and mines to booby-trap the unusual pathways and recognised routes of the lower and (predominantly) the middle tiers of society as you progress up through the pyramid, or saving them all for the ultimate opportunity, the chance to detonated your entire payload at the top of the social hierarchy -- should you ever make it to that pinnacle -- and thereby initiate a possible avalanche of your treasured personal concepts and notions down through all the subdivisions of society, and hope that not only have you destroyed enough of the top tier of the pyramid to have effected a permanent change to the prevailing social structure of rule and power but that enough conceptual 'rubble' from this demolition reaches the middle and bottom of the pyramid to form the basis (in the latter) of and social acceptance (in the former) for lasting social change in accordance with the conceptual coup d'état you have just undertaken in the spirit of fairness and equality, and for the consequences of which you are at best only ever going to be held partially responsible ...
... Unless you consciously or unconsciously betray one of your own principles and establish yourself as some kind of socially-enlightened dictator (and thus as the unwitting potential target for a possible next generation of upstart revolution-minded conceptual guerrillas who perceive the unavoidable injustices of the attempted idealised society whose faults (including its inherited basic three-tier structure) you were always blind to, in the process of making reality accord ever so slightly more perfectly at each step in the tantalisingly ever-receding feasibility of your personal purpose (and the regrettable but inevitably societally-borne more practical, not to say laborious and physically-demanding, aspects of the necessary mission, during which the stated aims of your grand plan must be put aside temporarily) that purpose's diverse aims being those policies which you justifiably believe to ultimately cumulate in the historically-innovative and unprecedented introduction of an ideally equitable, just and unquestionably and perfectly fair and equal and partially or wholly planned society as demanded by your long-held plans and dreams, no matter what short-term historical price must be paid by the members of the potentially-reformable society with whom you have entered into a pact in the interests of those members of society who are still unborn, and whose toiling parents (unbeknown to you) are already growing impatient with their perceived lot in life and are openly fulminating against your plans and your schemes which involve so much work for no tangible reward or increase in living standards... into this fertile ground potentially steps the next generation of conceptual guerrilla, armed with plans for a better tomorrow ...
So. Those are the (metaphorical) options available to you if you want to be right in both a private/moral sense and a social/justifiable sense, or somewhere in between.
1) Adjust to your current (and presumably --given your desire for equality and justness -- lower-third) social stratum;
2) Assimilate upward, jettisoning your moral code bit by bit or wholesale, and then reach a social stratum from which you can look down comfortably on your base origins, while appreciating the new (probably middle-tier) social stratum in which you now operate;
3) Persistently and continuously insinuate your way upward through the social strata, scattering exemplary aspects of razor-sharp moral judgement to receptive individuals as you go, or saving the bulk of your moral payload for the much anticipated and perhaps ultimately unattainable but, ideally and even possibly, your eventually-victorious assault upon the very summit of your journey, the peak of society, at which point you are in a position of insight and power to effect a lasting change by detonating your payload of socially-just ideas and plans and thereby destroying the old code of conduct and relying to a certain uncontrollable degree on the natural transmission downward through society and the subsequent socially-determined interpretations of the debris and shrapnel of your plans.
The remainder of this parable is a reminder of the dangers of believing that your ideas constitute the best possible examples of all conceivable concepts of and proposals for rightness and justice, and the dangers inherent in prolonging your perhaps naturally-assumed and intended temporary personal status as the visionary 'first among equals' ...
(This model is applicable to all social pyramids of varying social scale and degrees of robustness; susceptibility of middle-stratum citizens to new ideas operated by batteries (not included); malleability of followers' minds not guaranteed; idealised plans for The Better Society (tm) left to participant/s discretion; no parts guaranteed. Your statutory rights are unimportant, because you are a member of the bottom-tier of the societal pyramid, which assessment can be reliably based upon your susceptibility to briefly-inspiring but ultimately unproductive conceptual games such as this one)
04 Nov 2013, 5:57 pm
. And there is your answer. Additionally a lot of "normal" people are social animals, and not particularly critical thinkers. So they go with the crowd, despite perhaps not sharing the crowd mentality.
