Recently I participated in a huge discussion of social pressure. Which caused me to completely re-examine how social pressure shapes my actions. The wave of social psychology briefly consumed me washing away any existing ideas I had about my individuality.
Then I wrote a paper ripping apart public education and the failure of such a establishment which left me with no hope for the future. And really pissed off at my professor making me write a six page paper forcing me to label the general social competence of a couple of kids after doing a short, case study in a extremely controlled classroom environment. I ended the paper with a eloquently written paragraph about how I thought the whole assignment was an invalid assessment and a waste of time. I feel like some classes do nothing but get in the way of my education.
Other classes completely erase the foundation of education I thought I had. I'm writing a paper on a piece of Dada art. The piece I'm studying is by a woman and I'm taking a feminist approach to how it affected today's modern art. But is it verifiable to study a piece of art based solely on the fact that the artist was a woman and she was overlooked because her gender. Does studying an artist that's a minority ever cloud our judgement of what is quality work? Do we ever error in judgement as we strive to overcompensate for fear of being prejudice? Which then ends up resulting in prejudice of another extreme. My whole idea of the reasons behind feminism is being questioned. Idealist feminism or everyday feminism? Which is practical? Is labeling something/someone being feminist a limited definition that binds instead of liberates?
Also, after studying several sources, I'm finding a sad lack of cohesiveness in the story behind this work. Can truth really be found or is it all clouded by opinions and the need to shove them down the throats of others? How can you label and comprehensibly contain reality under a title? Calling something Dada in no way embodies what it was like really living it. I can't imagine labeling the things I do under a title. It's too simplified and comes with assigned explanations for actions.
Dada was formed from the direct need to be different from the Bourgeois  They did certain things because they knew it would piss others off. I think that completely invalidates their existence as an organization. To veer off mainstream for no other reason than to not be mainstream is the ultimate falsehood of individualism. You are not being an individual you are conforming to another establishment under the false title of "original". I had an experience with this girl I worked with the other day. She asked me if I was an expert on being a hipster, to which I reluctantly confirmed I knew somewhat of the culture. This girl said her friend recently became a vegan and she said that she wouldn't join her in that account but told her that she'd become a hipster with her. I just wanted to say, "Chick, that's not how it works. People like you are the reason people hate hipsters. You're not being real man. I get called a hipster but I genuinely molded to aspects of the movement naturally. You dig?" I feel so pretentious even saying that, isn't that being like the Dada? Truth, being "real" just seems like a farce that is clouded by social expectation.
And when does the requirement of being civil to someone bleed into a false presence of self?
This jumble of juxtaposed questions with somewhat extant links, embodies the mess that is my brain right now.

Cue existential crisis.