The effect of clothing on sociological interactions and categorization has been too scarcely studied. And considering the luxury of calling myself a sociologist gives me the purpose of making non-empirical observations in any environment when I happen to be present. Here, I am going to make a comparative analysis about the effect of clothing on sociological interactions in an elite educational system, where I assume that I am a sociologist and that my existence in this system has no effect on the observative objects in consideration. (Okay, I am sure I have an above average effect on the sociological interactions considering my continuous revolt against the institution of clothing, comprising of Nubian hats that pass of Jewish hats, hence making cars halt on the streets to observe these phenomena related to my existence)
Assuming I am a sociologist, the non-empirical observations show that the institution of clothing can be categorized into three categories, directly indicating the social class the object under study belongs to. The first and the foremost, the trend-setters are the ones who wear gris-noir-gris with the usual content freshly imported from the USofA or la Europa, matching the exact fashion trends prevalent in the societies of the company’s origin (considering that most of the stuff is still produced in China). They are the ones who usually are spotted with La Senza bags, for the ones who choose to be formal or the Abercrombie and Fitch sweatshirts and sweat-pants for the ones who want to willingly sport their mediocracy! They tend to be scattered around a singular point in our statistical yet hypothetical field and tend to talk about cool mediocre topics such as “I hate Math!” Then we have the China-trend setters, in the sense that they seem to cover themselves with the exact imitation of what I mentioned above (which is contradictory in a way since all is produced in China after all). So it is basically a Chinese-imitation of what China can make the best and label as “western”. They tend to talk amongst themselves in a mixture of their non-colonial language and colonial language, with a higher content of their “mother tongue”than that found in the case of the former, since the former prefer to show their patriotism towards their respective colonies in a post-colonial world. This phenomenon is observed in many developing countries, like in India where Lord Krishna and Lord Hastings share the same title. Then we have the last, the open-imitators, who have come out of their closet about their imitation-ness. The goods they flash are openly Chinese and they tend to communicate with a higher degree of their “mother tongue”. The entire goal of the institution of clothes is to create a form of code, or a uniform with almost a military disciple such that the deviations (such as me) are punished with the ugliest looks and a penalty of giving away a part of self-esteem.
These hypothetical social fields of elite interactions are found to exist not only in developing countries, but are strikingly observed in the developed “West” as well. But in all such social fields, mediocracy is attempted to be achieved with a religion that I call here “I hate Math!” to an extent that it produces a thought bubble that is common across the globe yet in disparities with the regionally prevalent conditions, like the difference in Lira and Dollar as currency in Lebanon (read: The pseudo-economy of Lebanon)
It is on the existence of this internal and regional disparity that I would like to conclude on. What I have observed increasingly is that mediocracy has turned into an epidemic forcing religions such as “I hate Math!” on the genius who sits right next to you in your classroom, considering this state of hate to be a majority-accepted view and justified in the very fact of its majority consensus. And considering our assumption that I am a sociologist to be false, I hereby evoke Reason to take over the debate!