Looking Inside Out: A Sociology of Knowledge and Ignorance of Geekness

Geek. Nerd. Dork. Outsider. Anti-social. Outcast. Non-mainstream. No life. All of these words have been used to describe me, and all of them are true to some degree. These are terms used for people who have interests that are outside of popular culture. When a person falls out of the "in" group due to different interests, whether it be from liking things that the dominant group does not approve of or from not liking things that the dominant group likes, he gets branded with one (or all) of the above terms. This categorization is a way to separate the insiders and the outsiders, and a hierarchy is established. It is obvious that the outsiders are at the bottom of that arrangement, since all of the terms used to describe them bear a negative connotation. This system of branding is a problem for many reasons. For one thing, it is a system that turns a difference in the preference of trivial interests, such as what kind of music people listen to and what forms of entertainment they enjoy, into marked divisions. With people thusly divided, it establishes that one particular culture, the "popular culture," is superior and more acceptable than the unpopular culture. Finally, the people who aren't in the "in" group find it impossible to break out of their ascribed identities. They find that they need to conform and change what their interests are to avoid being labeled as anti-social or geeky, even if the terms are not accurate descriptions of their characters. I personally relate to this issue because I am a geek, in many ways. I have an interest in and work well with computers and the internet. I entertain myself with video games and trading card games. Much of the music in my collection is made by non-American artists, with names that few people have ever even heard of. I do not go to clubs, I do not actively date, and I do not watch sports. These are all trivial things, yet it's enough for people to describe me as anti-social, an outsider, and someone who has no life. I could never figure out why my choice in entertainment had so much bearing on my character, and why it is such a source of division. I will open this discussion by first looking at myself. I do this because, according to the works of G.I. Gurdjieff, the process of knowing has to start with self-awareness. "The only person who can know myself is myself ... no amount of fantasizing about who or what I am will substitute for a direct, dispassionate look at the data" (Speeth 73). It is a difficult, and perhaps impossible, task, but looking at my experiences without bias and questioning my impressions and memories help me draw as clear a picture as I can possibly draw. One of the important concepts from Gurdjieff's work is that of questioning how you think. "Judge everything from the point of view of your common sense. Become the possessor of your own sound idea, and don't accept anything on faith; and when you, yourself, by way of sound reasoning and argument, come to an unshakable persuasion, to a full understanding of something, you will have achieved a certain degree of initiation" (Gurdjieff 27). Looking deeply into how I formed my own thoughts, I can begin to see how muddled they are. My identity isn't as much based on how I see myself as it is on how I present myself to the world. I am only a geek because other people have told me I am a geek. With that in mind, I have conformed to their definition of what a geek is. Recognizing that my own thoughts could interfere with my quest for the truth is the first, and most difficult, step. "Sometimes subconscious barriers need to be broken before a person can become aware" (Cohen 10). The problem with subconscious barriers is that it's difficult to know that they even exist. My preference for geek culture, for gaming, and for associating with that group could be caused by unconscious spite. Perhaps my years in high school being out of the "in" group have nurtured a sort of disdain for all things mainstream. …