I Am A Real Werewolf
Standards and Images
How we understand ourselves as living beings and how we shape ourselves as individuals is dependent, in part, on standards and images. A standard is a collective image of a group of beings or things ba<x>sed on biological, psychological, and behavioral tendencies. Biological aspects are ba<x>sed on the typical physiology of living organisms or the typical form of non-living ob<x>jects. Psychological aspects are ba<x>sed on the typical cognitive processes of living organisms. Finally, behavioral aspects are ba<x>sed on typical actions for living organisms or typical movements/formations of non-living ob<x>jects. All social action seen in organisms falls under the behavioral category. A standard is somewhat diagnostic, but it is mainly a general fr<x>ame of reference for something. Before a doctor performs surgery on a human, they need to be familiar with the human standard (anatomy, etc.). Before a veterinarian performs surgery on a house cat, they must be familiar with the domestic feline standard. Proper standards can only be determined through study, and the most complete standard should come through observation by a being that the standard applies to and by an external opinion. The most well-formed standard on Earth is obviously that of the human, which is primarily self-defined. The standards of other animals are lacking input from their tenants, and, similarly, the human standard is lacking a significant non-human perspective. One could argue, then, that a complete standard does not yet exist. Aside from that, however, I would like to make a point about the werewolf standard that should be an example for any other being (or ob<x>ject) that does not yet have a standard. Werewolves can only be judged by a werewolf standard, not by the standard of any other animal. That of humans is incomplete and that of wolves is incomplete. In addition, a combination of these two standards cannot be assumed to be accurate, especially if you do not know what to combine. How this can be applied to anything else is that, again, the proper standard can only be determined through study; assumptions are insufficient and can lead to dangerous misconceptions.
Next, I will explain the image. An image, in this context, is a culturally-variant, multi-faceted icon ba<x>sed on a standard but used actively as both a reference point and a way of being to aspire to. For example, a young male might see a stock image of a handsome, fit, and muscular man and aspire to mirror that image or may, at the very least, recognize it as a general, adult male appearance. Images can be stereotypical and tend to be superficial. However, a full image is an individual standard that one applies to themselves; it is a way of adapting societal expectations and one’s environment to their unique biology, psychology, and behaviors. While the ideal image is full, some people focus too much on mirroring a stereotypical appearance or collection of behaviors instead of using an image as a spring-board for the development of their own unique personality. Images can also be unrealistic. For example, “Superman” can be an influential character, especially for young children. An image is chosen by a person and then modified or “sifted” for the desired qualities. In the case of Superman, a young girl could take the image of a hero and desire to be a heroine with Superman’s abilities. A young boy could aspire to be like Superman in his entirety, too look like him, or simply to have his abilities. In summary, an image is somewhat of a cardboard cut-out of appearance and action that a person can desire to be like or desire not to be like to some chosen extent. A standard is more scientific and categorizing, but an image is something to aspire or compare to. Simply put, a standard is factual while an image is stereotypical. The importance of establishing these two definitions is both general and specific; general in that these concepts can be applied universally, and specific in that I wish to argue for the lack of an official standard as well as a lack of sufficient images for werewolves. Let it be made clear that I do argue for the existence of werewolves and that I am seeking both acceptance of werewolves and to build a fr<x>ame of scientific study for them.
We choose to embrace or deny images, but society promotes a “normal” image that is generally taught to children. In part, this is a standard, but we try to give children the option to choose who and what they want to be in life. Also, the application of an image is not always logical and ba<x>sed on facts; at that point, it becomes a more superficial or inaccurate image. However, regardless of application, this general image still exists, and it is this kind of image that does not exist for werewolves. Unrealistic images abound, but a common image is not present. For a common image to be formed, first society would have to be made aware of the existence of werewolves and accept them as people. Afterwards, the appearance of “stock” images of werewolves as well as public figures who are self-expressed werewolves would be the beginning of a collection of realistic images that young werewolves could aspire to. It is important that I state that I am not suggesting a difference between the image of, for example, a fire-fighter who is human versus a fire-fighter who is werewolf. The importance of a werewolf as a fire-fighter for a young werewolf is comparable to the image of a fire-fighter who is female for a young girl; it helps a child to see themselves in the position of something like a fire-fighter or an astronaut when they can visually relate with the individual they are looking at. It is not critical that the image mirror the child, but the case of a werewolf is more significant than a similarity of gender or race. In fact, being comparable in terms of gender or race can apply both to humans and werewolves. I am simply stating that an image tends to be more impactful when it is more relatable. I argue that these two concepts, the standard and the image, are very important for people (especially from a young age) to understand what they are as well as develop who they are over time. Positive images are lacking for werewolves and a standard cannot exist without scientific study. Without these two things, as well as with the continued lack of awareness and acceptance by humans, young werewolves will grow up without an understanding of what they are, inevitably damaging their image of who they are and leading them into a complex psychological and social battle between their personality and natural state of being and a society that neither believes in nor accepts them.
There is a human standard and there is a wolf standard, but there is not a werewolf standard. And when you have no fr<x>ame of reference for appearance, biology, psychology, and behavior other than what you get from television, movies, books, and the internet, you are doomed to be misguided, insecure, and (on some occasions) psychologically unstable. This is not caused by the natural state of being a werewolf, but rather by the choice of werewolves to remain hidden and by the ignorance and hatred promoted in human society towards werewolves. This is a critique of both sides, humans and werewolves, as well as a call to action. I could make many arguments and I have made many arguments for the exposure and acceptance of werewolves, but perhaps the simplest argument and the hardest to counter is this: if we have already been living together, then how could exposure possibly change that co-habitation? If you suddenly discovered that your neighbor was a werewolf, would you react ba<x>sed on lies and misconceptions that you think are true or would you judge that person as an individual? If you like a person, then like them. If you do not like a person, then do not like them. It does not matter whether or not they are different from you. All that matters is whether or not you like them as a person. If you do not, then do not be friends with them. It is as simple as that. I understand that there is fear surrounding the subject of werewolves, but how could anyone possibly know what there is to fear if the majority of the public believes that werewolves do not exist? Can you assume that certain attributes you obtained from books or movies apply to all werewolves, which is both ignorant and racist in concept, when you do not know that they are true? Again, if you like your neighbor and now you realize that they are a werewolf, what difference does it make? Why should that change whether or not you like them? Before you assume that you understand the entire nature of a person, maybe you should talk to them and judge them individually ba<x>sed on who they are, not what they are.
How we understand ourselves as living beings and how we shape ourselves as individuals is dependent, in part, on standards and images. A standard is a collective image of a group of beings or things ba<x>sed on biological, psychological, and behavioral tendencies. Biological aspects are ba<x>sed on the typical physiology of living organisms or the typical form of non-living ob<x>jects. Psychological aspects are ba<x>sed on the typical cognitive processes of living organisms. Finally, behavioral aspects are ba<x>sed on typical actions for living organisms or typical movements/formations of non-living ob<x>jects. All social action seen in organisms falls under the behavioral category. A standard is somewhat diagnostic, but it is mainly a general fr<x>ame of reference for something. Before a doctor performs surgery on a human, they need to be familiar with the human standard (anatomy, etc.). Before a veterinarian performs surgery on a house cat, they must be familiar with the domestic feline standard. Proper standards can only be determined through study, and the most complete standard should come through observation by a being that the standard applies to and by an external opinion. The most well-formed standard on Earth is obviously that of the human, which is primarily self-defined. The standards of other animals are lacking input from their tenants, and, similarly, the human standard is lacking a significant non-human perspective. One could argue, then, that a complete standard does not yet exist. Aside from that, however, I would like to make a point about the werewolf standard that should be an example for any other being (or ob<x>ject) that does not yet have a standard. Werewolves can only be judged by a werewolf standard, not by the standard of any other animal. That of humans is incomplete and that of wolves is incomplete. In addition, a combination of these two standards cannot be assumed to be accurate, especially if you do not know what to combine. How this can be applied to anything else is that, again, the proper standard can only be determined through study; assumptions are insufficient and can lead to dangerous misconceptions.
Next, I will explain the image. An image, in this context, is a culturally-variant, multi-faceted icon ba<x>sed on a standard but used actively as both a reference point and a way of being to aspire to. For example, a young male might see a stock image of a handsome, fit, and muscular man and aspire to mirror that image or may, at the very least, recognize it as a general, adult male appearance. Images can be stereotypical and tend to be superficial. However, a full image is an individual standard that one applies to themselves; it is a way of adapting societal expectations and one’s environment to their unique biology, psychology, and behaviors. While the ideal image is full, some people focus too much on mirroring a stereotypical appearance or collection of behaviors instead of using an image as a spring-board for the development of their own unique personality. Images can also be unrealistic. For example, “Superman” can be an influential character, especially for young children. An image is chosen by a person and then modified or “sifted” for the desired qualities. In the case of Superman, a young girl could take the image of a hero and desire to be a heroine with Superman’s abilities. A young boy could aspire to be like Superman in his entirety, too look like him, or simply to have his abilities. In summary, an image is somewhat of a cardboard cut-out of appearance and action that a person can desire to be like or desire not to be like to some chosen extent. A standard is more scientific and categorizing, but an image is something to aspire or compare to. Simply put, a standard is factual while an image is stereotypical. The importance of establishing these two definitions is both general and specific; general in that these concepts can be applied universally, and specific in that I wish to argue for the lack of an official standard as well as a lack of sufficient images for werewolves. Let it be made clear that I do argue for the existence of werewolves and that I am seeking both acceptance of werewolves and to build a fr<x>ame of scientific study for them.
We choose to embrace or deny images, but society promotes a “normal” image that is generally taught to children. In part, this is a standard, but we try to give children the option to choose who and what they want to be in life. Also, the application of an image is not always logical and ba<x>sed on facts; at that point, it becomes a more superficial or inaccurate image. However, regardless of application, this general image still exists, and it is this kind of image that does not exist for werewolves. Unrealistic images abound, but a common image is not present. For a common image to be formed, first society would have to be made aware of the existence of werewolves and accept them as people. Afterwards, the appearance of “stock” images of werewolves as well as public figures who are self-expressed werewolves would be the beginning of a collection of realistic images that young werewolves could aspire to. It is important that I state that I am not suggesting a difference between the image of, for example, a fire-fighter who is human versus a fire-fighter who is werewolf. The importance of a werewolf as a fire-fighter for a young werewolf is comparable to the image of a fire-fighter who is female for a young girl; it helps a child to see themselves in the position of something like a fire-fighter or an astronaut when they can visually relate with the individual they are looking at. It is not critical that the image mirror the child, but the case of a werewolf is more significant than a similarity of gender or race. In fact, being comparable in terms of gender or race can apply both to humans and werewolves. I am simply stating that an image tends to be more impactful when it is more relatable. I argue that these two concepts, the standard and the image, are very important for people (especially from a young age) to understand what they are as well as develop who they are over time. Positive images are lacking for werewolves and a standard cannot exist without scientific study. Without these two things, as well as with the continued lack of awareness and acceptance by humans, young werewolves will grow up without an understanding of what they are, inevitably damaging their image of who they are and leading them into a complex psychological and social battle between their personality and natural state of being and a society that neither believes in nor accepts them.
There is a human standard and there is a wolf standard, but there is not a werewolf standard. And when you have no fr<x>ame of reference for appearance, biology, psychology, and behavior other than what you get from television, movies, books, and the internet, you are doomed to be misguided, insecure, and (on some occasions) psychologically unstable. This is not caused by the natural state of being a werewolf, but rather by the choice of werewolves to remain hidden and by the ignorance and hatred promoted in human society towards werewolves. This is a critique of both sides, humans and werewolves, as well as a call to action. I could make many arguments and I have made many arguments for the exposure and acceptance of werewolves, but perhaps the simplest argument and the hardest to counter is this: if we have already been living together, then how could exposure possibly change that co-habitation? If you suddenly discovered that your neighbor was a werewolf, would you react ba<x>sed on lies and misconceptions that you think are true or would you judge that person as an individual? If you like a person, then like them. If you do not like a person, then do not like them. It does not matter whether or not they are different from you. All that matters is whether or not you like them as a person. If you do not, then do not be friends with them. It is as simple as that. I understand that there is fear surrounding the subject of werewolves, but how could anyone possibly know what there is to fear if the majority of the public believes that werewolves do not exist? Can you assume that certain attributes you obtained from books or movies apply to all werewolves, which is both ignorant and racist in concept, when you do not know that they are true? Again, if you like your neighbor and now you realize that they are a werewolf, what difference does it make? Why should that change whether or not you like them? Before you assume that you understand the entire nature of a person, maybe you should talk to them and judge them individually ba<x>sed on who they are, not what they are.
31-35, M