what's in a definition...

It's come to my attention that there are many people who believe in order

to be "punk" one must be "individualistic". Although, most who say such

things don't believe anyone could be, since [to them] it would mean being

alone and cut off from all peoples of the world. Others argue that one must

look completely different from all of society in order to truly be an

individual. But let's look at the word "individual", shall we?? What makes

up an "individual" or makes them "individualistic"??

I believe the answer would be as follows: an individual is one person/human

being.

Okay then, how many of us can say they're an individual??

I think we all can. We are, in fact, each separate human beings, therefore

individuals. Now, let's look at our "society". As much as we try to fight

it, we are, in truth, all part of a large social system called

"civilization" (and I use quotation marks cause that's another

debate all together). Since we are all individual persons who make up

this culturally vast society, can we each, in turn, be individualistic?? The

answer is yes.

In reality, we are all products of each other, the past and present, our

fears, dreams and insecurities. However, as much as society [either

greatly or minimally] effects our lives we are all still each individuals.

Our lives constantly remain separate from the rest of humanity's lives.

Our souls, minds and hearts are our own, each different.

I'm surprised that some are able to pass judgement on others based on

little more then personal opinion or physical appearance. There is only a

select amount of clothing on the market, or able to be made ourselves,

music choice is limited, and ideas are limited as well. However, as I've

stated before, these physical similarities aren't what make each of us up.

They aren't what make us who we are. We all have unique fingerprints,

opinions and memories. We are as individualistic as we have ever been.

Living outside "society" and without human contact is, in fact, humanly

impossible, since it's our nature to need the company of others to remain

sane. Therefore, using it as an example of how un-individualistic we are

isn't plausible.

So, what does this mean for all those whose definition of "punk" is being

individualistic?? Well, personally, I think it's wrong. Obviously, we are [individuals]

regardless of how we label ourselves, and punk goes beyond and far deeper

then outward appearance. It's just a thought, but maybe, just maybe... We

should stop trying to define something that's in our blood, and can't be

defined anyways.