Got Those Homogenized Blues

THERE'S a growing problem on college campuses, and at Boston College in particular that cannot be ignored and will not go away.

I find a greater number of people look the same, dress the same, and have similar goals, and this homogeneity can only lead to the apocalyptic conclusion that we all might think the same.

I'm sure very few of us go out shopping or glance through their wardrobe with the intention of looking like someone else. It's not anyone in particular--it's just the look that they're after. Oh, you know it all too well. It's the khaki pants, the shoes from L.L. Bean (a demigod to this crowd), gray wool socks (if any), a wrinkled oxford shirt under a white-dotted blue sweater (the most popular garment on campus), topped off with a dungaree jacket (collar turned up). Combined with name-brand shades (Vuarnets or Ray Bans or imitations thereof) replete with neckstrap, this typical B.C. student is prepared for any potential preppie crisis.

Of course, there are variations on the theme. The ever-popular sleeveless sweater with a white t-shirt, or the turtleneck/collared shirt/sweater routine can replace the oxford shirt/sweater combo. Both sexes wear these variations: not only are we homogeneous, we're androgynous.

In specifically ladies apparel, how bout those straw baskets that everyone has--I mean, who had the warehouse sale? There are thousands of those suckers around. And the haircuts: girls have bobs, boys' hair is cropped short and neat. It looks like a 50s movie.

I don't want to come down too hard on B.C. You'll see this phenomenon on many college campuses, and the problem of homogeneity is not limited to institutions of higher learning. Our mass culture induces people to become part of the in trend, and condones a conformity that is dangerous to everyone's individuality.

You see it in popular magazines and on television. Can anyone tell the difference between "Matt Houston" and "Magnum P.I."? Between "Dynasty and "Dallas"? Between People and Us magazines? We joke about what schlock is printed in the National Enquirer, and then watch the schlocky "Entertainment Tonight." No difference. I realize people watch these shows as a kind of fantasy to escape the unpleasantness of the real world, but look at the winners we've picked to escape to.

It's so easy to be like others, to dress like others, because it gives us a sense of connection: ties to each other that give us security and stability in an age of uncertainty. At the same time, such conformity can make you feel like a micropreppie in the greater scheme of Preppiness. I remember going to a party last year where two other guys had the same rugby shirt as the one I was wearing, and I felt pretty stupid. It's a bit Orwellian to walk into a party where everyone is wearing the same thing.

We are getting to a point where we define our social relations in terms of clothes, and this is disturbing. If society can shape what what we buy and emulate, can it not also shape what we think? And if it can shape what we think, is that not thought control?

What are our alternatives? To start with, I propose a giant bonfire at a central campus location where we can all bring our argyle socks. Bean jackets, green and pink corduroy pants, monogrammed sweaters, and other preppie paraphernalia and torch it once and for all. This includes all the straw baskets, all trendy sunglasses (and neckstraps), and those ugly Bean blucher shoes.

For kindling, let's pile high all the Bean catalogue on campus. Self-proclaimed ex-preppies can speak on how they broke the habit, and we can burn an effigy of Lisa Birnbach.

Better do it now before we lose the ability to recognize each other. *

Steven Lipin, a senior at Boston College, writes for The Heights.