Daperture

Humans are inevitably creatures of habit. We go back and seek the familiar. Even those who claim habitual change in the quest for truth and perfection or any other reason need constants. True change is rare and hard-earned through diligent and constant determination.

A thought that crossed my mind was wondering if social cliques and exclusivity was a trait necessary in communicative design rather than the flaw of an individual's willful denial? In a world of clique's and teams, it's obvious that social and intellectual barriers must be bridged in order for society to function as a whole.

In a naive, idealistic world, all people would be open in the sense that new ideas and individuals are always welcomed and included. There would be no segregation based on merit or social status. However, pragmatically speaking, that rarely happens. Even from a young age, preferences for material possessions, flavors, and people are observable. "Little Johnny favors aunt Hilda over uncle Jesse." These preferences seem to grow over time into social cliques of peers that would have some type of equal footing for each to volley back and forth. Once a group is naturally or artificially joined by circumstances of coincidence or necessity, the group can only stay together as long as those involved continue to stay on equal footing. Once there is an apparent disparity in morality, ability, commonality, or mission, the group will have an inevitable falling out (not always bad), and individuals will move on in search of a circle more fitting to their current priorities. Why aren't elementary, middle and high school cliques preserved from grade to grade? Of course some people stick together, but that is the exception, not the norm.

The challenge in this observation is that circles tend to be exclusive by design and for good reason. I've thought all these years, why should we reject some and accept others? Should we not open and embrace? However, most groups exist for the sole reason of meeting mutual needs. If one can't meet a mutual need of another, why should they be accepted? As obvious as that sounds, sometimes people feel they are unfairly rejected and they are casted out. We get problems not from the circles in it of themselves, but from the circles who feel that they are inferior to their rejected counterparts. Some diligently work to move "up" into new circles while others remain violently close to their fundamental values. Most seem to find an area in between. "who doesn't like to move up?"

I've noticed that people work best among their peers. The rich with the rich and the smart with the smart. Sounds like a good idea, but it leaves all the underachievers (myself included) to form our own circles to fight against what we believe to be the injustice of those on top. Not to state that those who may have a supierior status are out to step on the lower beings, but typically those in the lower caste do not realize that they are merely out of the upper caste's radar, rather than being pursued to be trampled on.

I've found in my personal journey's that exclusivity is just as important as open arms.

Striking the balance...