During the match, Eoulapa, along with cheerleaders, buoyed up the team. Sadly, after trailing by 2 and pulling 1 back, the team lost 1-4. Nonetheless, his espousal of his school team spurred the contemplation about students' sense of belonging.
So, Eoulapa wrote on his Instagram:
I have been in constant conflicts with myself. On one hand, I love my friends and long for their victory. On the other hand, this longing leads to a sense of belonging to the school, which I fear might deter my "Extol the good and chastise the bad" principle.
Therefore, I must dispel my doubts to establish a consummate judging system. First, there is no denying that, for an institution, if the mass deems themselves a part of it, it will be stable and uniform. However, the overextension of this sentiment leads to adamance and over-conformity, as the sense of togetherness often turns into averseness to the unconventional. Thus, at least for someone like me, I must regularly keep my support for the school in check. So what should I do? Too little, and helping the school seems desultory; too much, and reprimanding the school seems desultory. But I genuinely want to refine the school for better education! If demotivation and over-compliance are both undesirable, the only answer lies in the middle. What exactly is that though? How does such a stance manifest?
I guess I should not shout, scream, or even chant for the school as a monolithic entity, but instead for the players and contributers, especially where emotions inundate. That's because the adherence to an institution emerges as prejudices when, for example, someone rightly criticises the school. Unlike this, applauding a person (referred to as "intimate") or team, without associating them with the entire institution, albeit still generates bias, is less adverse to accurate judgement. Still, it creates a bond between one and others within the institution, engendering a force to serve one's intimates by advising the school.
I do not intend to uphold cults of personality. I opt for the individual instead of the whole, as attachment to someone is less potent than that to an institution with a uniform ideology. Above all, anything done will be assessed - no matter by the school or by anybody. Nobody should be followed. Instead, people should be judged and learnt from.
One might claim that, as I propose that one should champion not the school but its members, once these individuals leave, I will leave immediately, as I need not assist intimates by advising the school anymore. That is indeed, at first glance, a valid doubt. Yet, I must emphasise that by those I help, I mean every member in the institution. Why don't I help other people in other communities then? Because there is the idea of priorities. The proximity to and familiarity with one's current institution imply that intimates should be prioritised before people of other institutions, given that this is an effective way for different people to concurrently advise their own institution, for the betterment of their intimates' lives.
Essentially, by conflating the above ideas, I should support and aid my intimates, not just by extolling them and the school but also by chastising them - by offering constructive advice and initiating dialogue. This idea aligns with my predominant philosophy - advising the school to benefit intimates.
~Written 16/12/23 17:49 at home.