![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradept...I think I'm beginning to see a pattern here. Well, okay, I've been seeing the pattern for a while now, and this is just another extension of an idea already forumlated... or maybe an example of it, or something. Anyway, the material's been hinted at, at the very least already.
For once, the premise, while of the same nature, perhaps, as my usual introspections, does not begin with me. It is elsewhere - I'm a part of it, and I'll get there eventually - but it's a pattern that lends itself well to observation rather than cognition. It's the pattern of people complexity.
This is going to sound like common sense, but it seems like there is a point where most people transcend their associations. It's probably about this point that a character begins to obtain the third dimension so crucial to their believability. In people, I think it does much the same.
Normally, when a being is being described (by tse-self or by others), there are categorizations used: gendered, transgender, non-gendered, high intelligence, low intelligence, liberal politics, conservative politics, spitirual, not, et cetera. Those categorizations can then be refined further into their various compartments and departments - male, female, genius, idiot, savant, socialist, anarchist, fundamentalist, and so forth. The description by category allows the recipient of the description to fill in the base colours of the described being.
As we find out, though, description by category is incomplete. A more detailed picture usually starts with categories and adds exceptions - liberal but fiscally conservative, pro-life except for cases of rape and incest, bisexual but preferring XX or XY. By taking away certain aspects of the categorization, a more complete picture develops.
Even this, though is insufficient to make a good description. At some point, the categorizations become hindrances to making effective description. (At least, in some people it does - there may very well be plenty of people who fit their categories and do not deviate from them in the slightest.) The exceptions pile up to the point that either a new cateogry must be born, the categorizations must be redefined, or the whole thing is chucked, flaming and screaming, out the sixtieth-story window of the Empire State Building (or an eqivalent).
At some point, people step off the map - maybe because the map has become too limiting for them. They're tired of having people outside judge them on stereotypes and they're tired of people on the inside judging them on stereotypes (the two sets may not line up at all, but there's often some overlap here and there.) We go from "X, but not Y" to "not really X, but it's close." The explanations get longer, but the picture becomes more accurate. I think this is the point where the third dimension that's been there all the time suddenly becomes really visible.
So what prompted this idea coming firmly to the front of my mind? Stuff - you know, watching inter-fandom fighting, or seeing people rail against the constraints that certain labels try to impose or the expectations that certain descriptors drag along with them. I've always thought that I defied description, just because of my eccentricities (and I work damn hard to keep myself indescribable, thank you.), and now I'm getting examples proving that everyone else is the same way, too. Not that this is a shock to me (I've been of the opinion that people shoud be treated like people, not like collections of categories for a while now), it's just a justification that thinking that way is profitable - if a bit long-winded.
My American Culture professor repeatedly spoke on the idea that once a being allows another being to define tse, the definer gains power over the defined. His exhortation was that we continue to define ourselves, rather than let others do it for us. It might just be the only way we manage to accomplish anything in this world.
(If this is a repeat, my apologies. I suppose some things bear repeating - but if it is, could you let me know?)
For once, the premise, while of the same nature, perhaps, as my usual introspections, does not begin with me. It is elsewhere - I'm a part of it, and I'll get there eventually - but it's a pattern that lends itself well to observation rather than cognition. It's the pattern of people complexity.
This is going to sound like common sense, but it seems like there is a point where most people transcend their associations. It's probably about this point that a character begins to obtain the third dimension so crucial to their believability. In people, I think it does much the same.
Normally, when a being is being described (by tse-self or by others), there are categorizations used: gendered, transgender, non-gendered, high intelligence, low intelligence, liberal politics, conservative politics, spitirual, not, et cetera. Those categorizations can then be refined further into their various compartments and departments - male, female, genius, idiot, savant, socialist, anarchist, fundamentalist, and so forth. The description by category allows the recipient of the description to fill in the base colours of the described being.
As we find out, though, description by category is incomplete. A more detailed picture usually starts with categories and adds exceptions - liberal but fiscally conservative, pro-life except for cases of rape and incest, bisexual but preferring XX or XY. By taking away certain aspects of the categorization, a more complete picture develops.
Even this, though is insufficient to make a good description. At some point, the categorizations become hindrances to making effective description. (At least, in some people it does - there may very well be plenty of people who fit their categories and do not deviate from them in the slightest.) The exceptions pile up to the point that either a new cateogry must be born, the categorizations must be redefined, or the whole thing is chucked, flaming and screaming, out the sixtieth-story window of the Empire State Building (or an eqivalent).
At some point, people step off the map - maybe because the map has become too limiting for them. They're tired of having people outside judge them on stereotypes and they're tired of people on the inside judging them on stereotypes (the two sets may not line up at all, but there's often some overlap here and there.) We go from "X, but not Y" to "not really X, but it's close." The explanations get longer, but the picture becomes more accurate. I think this is the point where the third dimension that's been there all the time suddenly becomes really visible.
So what prompted this idea coming firmly to the front of my mind? Stuff - you know, watching inter-fandom fighting, or seeing people rail against the constraints that certain labels try to impose or the expectations that certain descriptors drag along with them. I've always thought that I defied description, just because of my eccentricities (and I work damn hard to keep myself indescribable, thank you.), and now I'm getting examples proving that everyone else is the same way, too. Not that this is a shock to me (I've been of the opinion that people shoud be treated like people, not like collections of categories for a while now), it's just a justification that thinking that way is profitable - if a bit long-winded.
My American Culture professor repeatedly spoke on the idea that once a being allows another being to define tse, the definer gains power over the defined. His exhortation was that we continue to define ourselves, rather than let others do it for us. It might just be the only way we manage to accomplish anything in this world.
(If this is a repeat, my apologies. I suppose some things bear repeating - but if it is, could you let me know?)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-21 03:52 pm (UTC)