Back by popular demand! Although my digital statistics keeping/tracking program is elementary at best, it has provided me with this fact: someone, somewhere, consistently reads my May 7, 2011 post “Turquoise tube tops, tattoos and the edge of oblivion….” and consistently searches “turquoise tube top”. Which tells us what? That tube tops, particularly turquoise ones, have made a fashion come back? This is/was somewhat true in some parts of the world. (where I live they have never gone out of fashion).
So what was so special about that post? Nothing if you ask me. Liked the title. That had potential. But really, it was my wondering aloud about being a clark in a (sub)culture where “different” is only relative to my immediate surroundings. The author of The Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) contributed a comment. This is what stuck with me:
“remember that the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers is culture (and gender) neutral. And while your own personal outward expression of your (clarklike) nature may be more in the main stream in one sub-culture relative to another, it is still about being the outsider.”
Now, if I can untangle the silly string from my thoughts…… Yes, I am a believer. I do believe (for I have seen it, h-a-l-l-e-lu-ja!) that people can be labeled a clark, scott or roger. That is to say that people view/perceive the world in (mostly) 1 of 3 possible ways. The characteristic “traits” of the remaining 2 are somewhere within us tip toeing around just below the surface. My own challenge has always been to access my scottian side at will – not because I am forced to under extreme conditions or because I got sideswiped by inadvertently taking a nap while standing up. No, I mean to deliberately, without thoughts of self-consciousness as to right or wrong , appropriate or not of a particular situation decide “hey, I think this here scott here needs a bit of scottian pie in the face” or “hey, I can relate to anything and everything as well as the next roger”. Once a clark, only a clark? Yes, and no.
What that means is that if I can know how a person looks at things, if I know how they perceive the world then I can know how to interact with them. O-o-k, but am I being disengenuous if, for example, I start talking with some rogers at work, get to know them and one day find I am “one of the gang”. Does this make me a roger? Does it make me less of a clark? Is that even possible? No, methinks not. What it means is that anyone including myself has a method (by) which gives direction on how to communicate with anyone. A method that can get me through some doors, into some parties, a date with a handsome movie star (no? really?) or an invite to a regatta? (well, maybe).
Where is the info on turquoise tube tops? Nowhere! What’s the point of this post? I don’t know, but thank you for stopping in and letting me indulge a bit while I wait for the ever elusive inspiration train.
Huh, I guess if Carrie can pull it off…..na-ah.