1. Adherence to structuralism and formalism
  2. Employment of characteristically modified colloquy
  3. Subjection to exclusively established stereotypes
  4. Conformance to certain behavioural modalities

Don’t you think it’s unfair to let a geek wallow in the implications of such definitions while everyone else stakes a claim to an upgraded stereotype that is, somehow, a justified redefinition? A change in the resources available for one’s use also means a change in the needs of the times. For example, if you had too much wood and too little metal, the needs of the lands would be better met by lumberjacks instead of blacksmiths and by botanists instead of engineers. In much the same way, while geeks may have been a group of individuals constituting an esoteric community whose interests were defined by the communion of mathematics and technology, it will only be fair to inherit the label in terms of what it describes and not in terms of any weight it can throw around.

The geeks of the present are way different from the geeks of 1985 or even 1991 – the geeks of today dictate if an abstract formulation such as Facebook will be valued at $100 billion and if Nokia will eventually drown under the weight of its own creation: the smartphone market. Today, with research and development strongly backing up the “geeky” lifestyle, it makes much more sense to be a geek (and, obviously, it’s also awesome being one): own a blog to say whatever the hell you want to, swallow up thousands of miles in physical distance with a “smarthouse” that you and your faraway girlfriend can share, experience augmented reality gaming and never have to gym again, and sardonically contemplate if the switch from Android to iOS is going to get you labelled as a traitor.

With such a Universe complementing the geek mentality, how is it fair to continue to expect that all geeks look and behave like Zach Galifianakis does in his movies? What is the pejorative in being overly intellectual? If anything, suppressing the inner geek in you should make you insular, adductive and temporal.

There is no necessity for intensive social interactions in a Universe that also contains video-conferencing; if you’re finding it “subhuman” or “inhuman” to remain indoors while professing interest in your friend’s new bike, then you’re also unnecessarily getting humanism and modernism mixed up. Your actions of the past did not involve your physical gestures to connote your honest intentions—and that’s also why the loss of physicality should connote nothing more than the loss of physicality!

(A corollary of the arguments in this article is discussed here.)

0 comments

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s