What is culture? What defines a culture? What happens when the culture that you're supposedly a part of does not feel like who you are?
There are a lot of questions and thoughts that can come from/go into American culture. Our pattern has often been to define each decade of the past century or so based on the prevalent culture at the time. In fact, we do this so much that the popular genre of music from the 1980s is simply referred to as '80s music.
This current decade seems to be going towards a definition of hip hop. This gets me thinking that "great, this is what my generation is going to be known for. Utter garbage." Although most people would agree that previous generations tend to feel that the current generation's culture is a load crap, at the moment they are most certainly correct.
So what about the rest of us? If we don't feel like we were part of this strange hip hop culture, then what culture were we a part of? Are we un-American?
This leads to the next point in my thought: the subculture. American culture, while usually divided by time, can further be divided into many subcultures. Many of these form the cliques of high school. These "cliques" are the focus of my writing today. While I cannot go in depth to each subculture, there are a few from my generation I would like to comment on.
First and unfortunately foremost comes pop culture. The most popular and widespread way of behaving and interacting with others. This culture tends to become the one the decade is "defined" by. Pop culture seems to decide what is normal, what is acceptable, what is entertaining, what is fashionable, etc. In high school, these are the cheerleaders, the jocks, the student government, and everyone who wishes they were one of the other 3. In college, they become sororities and fraternities. These are the people who care more what some air headed celebrity did last month than what the leaders of the free world are doing today. These are the people buying into popular music at the time.
These are those who listen only to the radio. They let someone else tell them what is cool and what they enjoy. I have seen it in people I know and even my own family.
The pop culture generation tends to eventual grow spines and stick to what they truly enjoy once they settle down and grow up. However, they still retain their sense of what is "normal" and, as will be the focus later, what constitutes "having a life."
Next comes the gamer. Now, what is it that makes a gamer? Is it anyone that plays games? Is it someone who is dedicated to games? Do you have to grow up a gamer to be one now?
Scott Ramsoomair does a pretty good job of summing it up here *language warning*
Now, I usually define a gamer as a person who plays real games. What's a real game though? Well, first of all, I immediately eliminate anything on Java or Flash you find on the internet. Or anything similar to this as there are many DS and Wii games that feel like Java or Flash ones.
Ultimately, being a gamer is about dedication. Does it sound crazy to you to play a game for 5 hours and have nothing but a blinking "The End" as your reward? If so, you are not a gamer.
A true, or hardcore, gamer has this kind of dedication. Gaming isn't just for passing the time, it is a full blown hobby.
This brings me to my next thought.... Many of the first subculture I mentioned would tell me people with that kind of dedication have no life. My question: what else do you suggest they do? If it is done in their freetime and does not interfere with other aspects of their life, how is this not having a life? Is spending money on dinner and movies with other people really "living" that much more? Everyone has times they wish to spend alone. Why are you a "lifeless loser" if you choose to play a video game in that time? And my other question, with all the self esteem promotion that our society is obsessed with these days, why is it still ok to tell gamers they have no life? As much self esteem as we try to push on people, the gamer (and geek/nerd) stereotype is still allowed to be picked on. Everyone expects the teenage kid to "grow up" and replace the games with something else. And at times this will happen and can be a natural occurance. Careers and families are undeniably more important than any hobby. Why is this feeling not agreed upon when the hobby is some form of sport or athletic activity? Every man is supposed to enjoy football well into his old age. This is mind, what then is wrong with a 30 year old man playing Zelda or Halo in his free time? It should be nothing, but the mainstream media still plays it as pathetic. In any mainstreamers head, they've subconsciously added "living in his parents' basement" to the description. There is so much hypocrisy when a 9 year old kid is considered to be wasting his time playing a video game and succeeding, but is rewarded for "participating" in a baseball league which consisted of standing in the outfield, sweating, and doing nothing.
This inevitably leads to the nerd/geek persona. First and foremost there is the need for a defining differene between the two. While both show dedication to fantasy and sci fi subjects and are well connected with the gaming culture, the distiction is still key. A nerd leans more towards the academic strength as well as the non mainstream hobbies. Due to this classification, I find myself as more of a nerd. That is not to say geeks don't also excell in school and such, they just tend to move their lives in less of a learning and more of an application direction.
Distictions of nerd/geek subculture include but are not limited to: a love for fantasy and science fiction, computer aptitude, love of reading both novels and comics, scientific trivia and facts, activities involving manipulation of scientific facts and technological capabilities.
This once again leads me to the thought of why is it not "normal" to be interested in these things. Why is it considered normal and ok to have entire channels devoted to watching as many sporting events as possible but to strange and unhealthy to buckle down for a Star Wars or Lord of the Rings marathon? Comic or sci fi conventions are strange and unusual places when far more expensive sporting events are not?
So the question is this: Why is the mainstream, a single subgroup in a much larger set, the group that defines our thinking and what is "normal?" As much as I do not consider myself a part of that group, I often think as they do. But why? What makes them right? What makes theirs the ultimate authority? They aren't the ones doing the studies. That's the nerds. Most of what makes mainstream culture possible are the contributions of nerds and geeks that form the technological backbone of our modern age.
Anyway, this far too long post that I originally tried to write from a nonbiased stand point (epic fail there) needs to come to a close. A close with a thought from a friend concerning the film Revenge of the Nerds. That movie catered to the very people who were portrayed as the bad guys. When we, the nerds, truly have our revenge (discounting of course the money we make while the jocks are getting our orders wrong) it will be far more epic than a pathetic greek festival in college.
