I've spent a lot of my life on the outside looking in. This has been especially true in my career choices, which of course has affected my economic standing as well. There have been other mitigating factors that have precluded my participating in the mainstream, including health etc. but as they are not relevant to this discussion, I'll leave them aside.
Being on the outside does two things. One, it gives you the opportunity to be an observer of trends and behaviours that wouldn't be noticed by an active participant. If I'm to be completely honest, I have to admit that the other thing that happens is that you develop an attitude that affects your objectivity when it comes to passing judgement on those trends and behaviours.
In order to justify your "outsider" status, there is a tendency to elevate yourself into a position of superiority to those you deem as active participants in what you're observing. This of course will play havoc with your objectivity as you're constantly seeking to find fault in order to boost your own ego and to cover up any desire that you have for general acceptance.
In spite of the above corollary, there are certain observations that are true, and raise certain questions about the nature of mainstream society. If you never had any desire to be on the outside looking in, but your inclinations were such that you ended up in that position what does that say about society?
I'm not talking about abhorrent behaviours like rape or murder, or even anything criminal that would immediately separate you from the norm. I'm not even talking about sexual orientation or matters pertaining to race, creed, culture, or religion that could cause a distinction to be made.
What I'm addressing here is the way in which intelligence and artistic aspirations are looked upon. From our earliest days in the schoolyard at primary levels, intelligence was looked down upon by our contemporaries, and used as an excuse for being ostracized. Who didn't dread being singled out for praise by their teacher in front of the rest of the class, knowing what sort of teasing would be the result?
The overt teasing vanished once you hit the higher grades of secondary school, but by then your "difference" was established and you were shunted aside from the mainstream of school life. Never to the extremes as depicted by Hollywood in their teen movies, but the position was still very real.
There was nothing wrong with getting decent, or even good grades, which was considered a status thing. The problem was in having individuality of thought, or formulating your own ideas. It usually came down to a choice of learning to keep your thoughts to yourself and fitting in, or developing a caustic attitude towards the mainstream, and finding your own way in the world.
Article comments
1 - John Spivey
Well gypsyman, we share some same experiences. Went to school and one day they told me I was smart and really I was just me being me. Suddenly I was different and on the outside for simply exploring the gift I was given. Tough stuff. Thanks for the post.
2 - Baronius
This reminds me of an incident on Malcolm in the Middle, just after Malcolm's IQ test comes back 165. His mom is telling him that there won't be any social difficulties if he stays nonchalant about it. Cut to his teacher telling the class that, "Malcolm is different. In his brain."
I disagree with one thing you said. The Protestant work ethic isn't the problem; if anything, the opposite is true. There's a laziness ethic in school. Anyone who shows an interest or makes an effort is shunned. The brainy kid tries everything to look uninterested. As bad as it is to be smart, it's even worse if people think you've studied.
I remember the oddest thing in school. Everyone walking into a test saying, "I know I'm going to fail this. I didn't study. I haven't learned a thing in this class." It's bragging about lack of accomplishment, and nerd that I was, I never understood it.
Everyone looked down on the artsy-types because you guys were wierd. But maybe also because you cared about something, and made an effort. No, wait, I'm wrong. You guys were just wierd. Heh.
3 - Steve
When hearing people's stories about themselves, I am often reminded of something called the "Four Color Personality Test".
'Gold' are folks who are into 'traditional' values, who are big on law and order in society, marriage, etc. These make up about 50% of the population.
'Blue' are what you might call 'touchy, feely' types, very much people persons, who love to be in unity with others, and who generally like to avoid conflict if at all possible. They make up about 10% of the population.
'Green' are folks who tend to be very analytical, often into science, and who tend to view themselves (or are considered by others) as intellectuals, and outside the mainstream of society. They also make up 10% of the population.
'Orange' folks tend to be the most creative, who are into making music, art, etc. They make up about 30% of the population, though they also make up a majority of the prison population apparently. They tend to dislike/distrust boundaries, hence their interest in art, which has few, if any, boundaries, though if that dislike of boundaries occurs in other areas, it can cause them to be 'trouble makers' or 'class clowns' as they are often called in their younger years.
I've found the above distinctions helpful in figuring out where people come from. I'm a Gold, with a bit of a Green streak, by the way. Don't know you well enough to know if you are an Orange with a strong Green streak or vice versa, but either way, it would be easy to see you feeling 'different' from most other folks as those two groups only make up 40% of the population combined.
4 - Elvira Black
Very interesting piece, gypsyman. I can relate to your experiences on many levels, though in slightly different ways, as I’ve also recounted on BC.
Until I got to junior high, I was considered an oddball by my classmates--and of course I had the same ones for six years, so the teasing never stopped. Though I was always the "best reader in the class," I seemed to have some sort of attention deficit disorder.
With few friends and no brothers and sisters, I wound up on my own a lot--reading of course, as well as listening to music and watching TV. It was a painful, lonely childhood, but it paid off in the end because I learned to think for myself. What I lost in social self-confidence I gained in confidence in my own opinions and ways of looking at things.
Careers in the arts can indeed be an oxymoron. The field is vastly competitive with a limited number of openings, and very few make big money at it even if they stick with it. No one asks for more painters or writers--those who choose to pursue it do so totally of their own volition. But if we did not have these brave and gifted individualists, the world would be a grey and dull place indeed.
5 - chantal stone
at least here, gypsyman, those of us who fall into the category you described can feel like we're among our own. even through the corridors of cyberspace...we creative types seem to gravitate to one another.
Steve....i'm a definite 'orange', destined, it seems, to work part-time at a restaurant while boldly pursuing my art on the side. i just thank God for my 'gold' husband, who's willing to support my endeavors.
6 - Paula
My significant other and I are successful in the arts - nobody held our hands or encouraged us - it took 15 long years of hard work and growing stones to get where we are today.
People approach us at events and ask us how we did it, not because they're really interested in what we have to say, it's because they think that there was some voodoo involved, some cheat that they can capitalize on.
We didn't grow up with silver spoons in our mouths or have an arts patron to pamper our bottoms. The secret is that while others were sitting around swooning and saying woe is me and joining mutual backslapping societies we were freaking working! - Even when no one would pay us and everyone told us to go away.
No one asks lawyers or doctors what they're going to fall back on because such professions and avenues of study are like a vast network of train tracks - you get on one and your train doesn't go anywhere else unless you get off and change tracks.
There is no set track for succeeding in the arts and nor should there be because if everyone was supported to move through the same channels we might as well get out the cookie cutter and start working.
The school of hard knocks produces interesting and unique artists - as yuck as it sometimes is to have had to go through it.
7 - Steve
Good for you, Chantal.