Perception of normality through the prism of "pheasanting"

 Social values ​​and the concept of interpersonal relationships are constantly changing and we can in no way say that the development of human culture is only upward for the better, or from tribal communities to a highly developed industrial society. This developmental theory of the development of society has been abolished for sociological reflections and professional literature and research. We are only talking about different societies.

Recent responses to the painting of pheasants or first-year students have been different, just as we understand a multicultural society today. Democracy is still a dictatorship of the majority, although we also know human rights, obligations and freedoms.

If we were to try to professionally analyze the new or old custom of painting the body, hair, face, clothes, shoes and even facades and sidewalks, the first analysis concerns property and the free disposal of property.  In short, the owners of all of the above are supposed to freely give all their property (including a body with guaranteed physical integrity) to other people for painting, and here we already encounter the problem of violation and damage to other people's property or interference with property rights.

The second paradigm concerns professionalism and aesthetics and labeling or marking. In some tribes (according to old sociological terminology) they dye their hair, face and body as a sign of belonging, or wear the same clothes. In our country, except for uniformed professions (except for dyeing hair, body, face), the law does not provide for special markings or recognition of individual groups. This means that no one should be marked, including "pheasants". The attempt to introduce school uniforms cannot be implemented in any way, which would help to make individual schools recognizable. There is only a yellow scarf for primary and first graders.  The body painting itself is also a subject of professional debate, namely the fundamental question of whether it could be classified as artistic painting, which is a matter of modernity. We know body, face and hair painting mainly from carnivals, and even then, many prefer to wear costumes and masks. You can just look at pictures of clowns. 

There are also rules for the so-called artistic "body painting", such as appropriate education and the use of harmless paints and other preparations. When "pheasanting" we come across already reported health problems of the so-called pheasants and we can assume that some have harmed the health of others, or caused health problems. Any trauma or traumatic experience will most likely be reported by the "pheasants" later, and it is a good question whether it will be recognized and punished.  The health component of their actions, their attitude towards other people, or whether the perpetrators of "pheasanting" will be treated as violent behavior and/or sadism or an infringement on human rights, or in short, those who "pheasanted" will be treated as perpetrators of criminal acts, is certainly questionable.

"Pheasants" were also photographed en masse and their photos published on social networks. They also made headlines in the media. I would certainly not say that any painting reminds me of an artistic depiction of an animal - a pheasant. Not even abstractly. The first artistic depictions or paintings or pictures of man were mainly taken from the natural environment, and only later from imagination.  However, I think that everyone who threw flour and eggs at other people and then published the photos should also be considered perpetrators of unauthorized photography, unless the "pheasants" agreed to be photographed, along with publishing the photos on social networks.

The next main paradigm of "pheasanting" is ethnological. In European culture, we can hardly find the ethnological custom of sprinkling and drawing and body painting, despite the textile industry, which has painted goods and footwear. We do know about carnival, and cultural introductions such as the later "paint-ball" as "team-building" and also sports. In Indian culture, we can find the festival of colors or sprinkling with colors, which are again subject to the rule of harmlessness to health and most likely also free choice. Even permanent body painting, such as tattoo, is not found as traditional ethnological aesthetic commandments or customs.  All of this would be more like a perverted imposition of a foreign culture, or rather cultural customs or components.

If we were to think about the protected rights of animals, which according to evolutionary theory also includes humans, it is a good question whether you can accept an animal, such as a cat or a dog or even a wild bird, with a color. As far as I know, you should not allow yourself to do this even if this dog or cat or bird damages your wall or door or clothes, or even bites, scratches or pecks you. You should be well aware of the various animal protection societies that also deal with animal torture. It is not known anywhere that the so-called "pheasants" would harm senior students in any way and would actually settle accounts with each other. However, the "pheasants" could later become their competition on the job market and "pheasanting" could also mean an inappropriate disqualification of potential competitors.

Everyone can really form their own opinion, freely express themselves artistically and have their own personal (even non-professional) aesthetic and artistic style, but on themselves and their own property, in order to avoid debates about damaging someone else's property, harming someone else's health, vandalism and sadism, and traumatic experiences on the first day of school, and violations of human rights regarding decisions about one's property and body, or bodily integrity.  

Such initiation rituals, which are not culturally ethnological and can be harmful to health and sadistic and also lead to material damage to someone else's property, can certainly be the subject of general social debate, because according to the majority opinion, they can become dominant and binding and, above all, a matter of normality.