Mean Girls, and Boys

Tonight's episode of Law and Order: SVU touched more nerves than I realised. At this time, I'm still agitated as hell. I guess I remember now why I still am averse to teenage-cool-group movies like the recent Mean Girls, Lindsay Lohan or no. For those of you who missed it (Law and Order, not Mean Girls), in today's episode a group of teenage girls collectively mutilate and kill one of their own, simply because they felt she was betraying them. As the case progresses, the viewer realises that it is not simply a case of spite or jealousy, and that the world of a teenager (at least in the States) is one that is filled with a whole different world of customs and rules we haven't even heard of. When it looks like it will end on a high note, the writers turn the tables on us and show us that some things never go away and that reality is never as cut and dried as we'd like.

A good episode, in short.

An interesting point that was raised tonight was the defence's argument that the dominant personality of the main defendant, Brittany, dwarfed and ultimately assumed control over any vestige of free will posessed by the other two girls in her clique. While the prosecuting ADA was rather skeptical of this (understandably) I felt that there were certain aspects of the defensive argument that had their merits, especially considering the social dynamics of the American teenage lifestyle. Granted I have only limited knowledge in law and psychology, but would we accept a diminished responsibility on the belief that a person's charisma is strong enough to overcome any moral scruples the people in his/her immediate social group has? Does free will disappear in the presence of a superior dominant personality? Can someone get off a murder charge based on a defence like this?

We've all seen the power of the personality at work: with Charles Manson, David Koresh, Ted Bundy's "disciple", Leopold and Loeb, and various other personas male AND female. History has seen how more dominant personalities tend to swallow those of others in their group, embuing them with a sense of moral righteousness as they go about their often deadly deeds. As the defence's expert remarked in Law and Order, solidarity is a powerful force that can make people (especially teens) suspend their other scruples, so long as they feel that they belong. We know this is prevalent abroad. Question is, how long before we see similar patterns in our teens?

In a way I guess I was lucky, because I never needed to belong to a "cool" group (and trust me, in private schools there are always cliques). Early on I accepted the fact that I was too nerdy to fit in with the cool ones and therefore sought (and found) other outcasts, geeks and misfits. Of course, once in awhile we'd think about what it would be like to be part of a cooler gang, but then someone would start another round of DnD and the whole thing would fly out the window.

Looking at the teens now (and trying hard not to be judgemental) I see that there is the need to conform, to belong to something even if it means doing something they may not totally agree with, though thankfully nothing as bad as the ribbing and degradation poor Agnes had to face in Law and Order. Barring the occasional brawl or accidental murder (which doesn't really fit with today's topic) I'd say Malaysian kids are still quite good natured.

I just hope we stay that way.

Goodnight.

P/S: On an unrelated note, how's this for a real life serial rapist? Award for sicko of the year, perhaps?