No Euphemism, No Sugarcoating

It’s 8:30 a.m. and I’m at university. A lesson was cancelled unheraldedly, so I’m trying to spend my time doing random stuff until the next lesson will start. In the last few days I was thinking about which topic I could talk in my weblog. I remembered a student in my course who left a very special impression on me, respectively he lacks a very important skill. Social competence. Since I’m attending a lesson concerning that topic I became curious what „Social Competence“ does mean. In groups we talked about that issue and some of the other girls said something like: „Social competence means being nice.“ The others agreed. Then someone said: „You learn being socially competent at school.“ They agreed again. But is it really that simple?

The Internet says: „Social competence refers to the social, emotional, and cognitive skills and behaviors that children need for successful social adaptation.” and I think this definition is much more appropriate. In my opinion social competence is the ability to adapt to the social environment, the skill to interact and communicate successfully (emotional and rational), to respect and understand a different cultural behaviour, etc.  A short explanation is not possible in just one phrase. Just being nice does not cover up the involved factors. And school does not mediates the complete social behaviour. School takes an important role for sure, but parental education is important as well. For example: You live in an old an shabby flat, you have to endure maltreatment in the worst imaginable way and the only expression of love you get to know is the experience of  total neglecting.  On the other hand you attend a school with a good reputation, nice and caring teachers and loyal students. I don’t think school will totally erase the negativity experienced at home. And I don’t think that there will be even the readiness to accept those maybe positive factors, simply because you are not familiar with that. I understand, that this is much more complex, but I’m writing a blog - not a book.

Nevertheless the student, I referred to in the first passage, is an outsider. No euphemism, no sugarcoating. He is just called “the nerd” or “the patient”. He does not differ in his appearance from the stereotype of a normal student, means he does not represent an own style of clothing that would make him stand out even more. He’s not tall, not small, he dresses properly, wears glasses and that’s all. But he lacks something very special: The ability to interact with his environment. I don’t even know in detail what it is that makes him this way. But I’m curious. The way he speaks and expresses himself is so much different from how we (the stereotype)  used to talk. The intonation, the dramatic in his voice, short breathing stops  are far beyond the average. He is not stupid. He is intelligent. He always asks random question (I’m convinced he knows the answers to his questions himself) and he answers in questions (i.e. “Does anyone know what XY might be?” – “I myself... I think, XY... is... the oppor...tunity... to XY, perhaps?”) There’s no need for him to be unsure.  And he is always right. I’d understand his unsteadiness if he would look for social isolation. But that’s not the case. If I were looking for an adjective to  describe him it, would be confiding. Just like a puppy. He strives for integration, but the more he tries, the more he fails. Seems that I lack social competence as well when I can’t integrate him in my comprehension.  I talked about that issue with a fellow student and she mentions that she heard of a disease, namely a light form of autism.  tbc