Popularity. Yikes. When I was 12 years old, my best friend Leila Morton and I went on what she called a "popular binge." Urged on by her older brother’s threats that if we weren’t popular by eigth grade, high school would be miserable, we embarked on a month-long initiative to get popular by any means necessary. (Her brother was, by the way, a freshman at the time, and obviously hadn’t the slightest idea what he was talking about). We sat at "the table," invested in L.L. Bean plaid, and even allowed the annoying guys from the boys’ school across the street a dance or two at the weekly mixers.

Two weeks later, I pushed thumbholes through my new flannel, dyed my hair back to black and gave up. Leila stuck it out. Needless to say, our friendship saw some tough times. She eventually transferred to another school where she could, presumably, remake herself. All just to be... popular.

But what is it, Popularity? The "popular" girl? The "in-crowd"? Is it real, or are Hollywood and the WB just chasing after another self-promulgating pop-culture (get it) myth?

When we use the word "popular," or talk about popularity, most of us probably think back to the golden era of 80s high school films, or perhaps even to their Jennifer Love Hewitt infested late-nineties aftershock. (You can’t honestly think she’s hot !?!) There, popularity is basically the domination and oppression of one group by another group. This is carried out and justified according to certain rules– criteria for popularity– that the dominant group themselves generate. In fact, the generating of these rules is to a certain extent the earmark of the "popular" group. (I don’t want to talk about Hegel here so I’m not gonna.) Good looks, athletic ability, and lots o’ money tend to factor significantly in these stereotypical social structures.

So does Darwin. In Pretty in Pink, (directed by Howard Deutch, but for all intents and purposes a John Hughes film), for example, the criterion for popularity is simple: money. The rich kids are the popular kids; they are the "in-crowd" even insofar as they eat and hang out inside of the school building. Inversely, the poor kids are the outcasts. They eat and hang out outside of the school building.

Basically, the popular crowd is better able to use the institutions available to them– in this case the social environment of the school. They are able to conform and they excel because of that conformity. Moreover, their predisposition towards success in the institution– popularity– is a direct result of their parents’ financial success, or dominance. The "fittest" therefore are popular according to an institution that their master position makes them able to shape in their own image. Meanwhile, the children of the weaker, i.e. poorer, parents languish –literally outside.

The point here is not that Darwin was writing about 80s high school life, or that popularity is a purely Darwinian phenomenon, but that any given social environment determines its own rules of play and that domination of that environment consequently depends on the ability of the individual to conform to those rules.

Presumably most people experience the popularity–thing firsthand–usually during junior high. (I know it wasn’t just Leila and me!) Common wisdom, however, dictates that by the time we get to college, people are either a) mature enough, or b) complacent enough, to no longer think along these lines. But in the aftermath of the Booty party, and an interesting lunch table discussion (not the first) about "nerd love," I had to find out more.

If popularity is largely a function of institutions, what constitutes "popularity" on a college campus, where the institution is, to a certain extent, yours to take or leave? It there even such a thing ?

As might be expected, people expressed a wide variety of opinions. Some, like junior Regan Douglass, said, "Yes, definitely there is popularity," while others indicated that if popularity does exist, it’s only in people’s heads. "There’s definitely not an ‘in-crowd’... there’s like, the slutty freshmen who always hook up at parties...they probably think they’re cool and popular, but the rest of the school thinks they’re retards," said Aaron Sachs "02. Others said that while there are popular individuals, there’re aren’t popular groups in the traditional sense.

Most people emphasized that popularity in college is a whole new ball game. Unlike high school, students living at college have free reign to find or create their own niche without a pre-established value system (e.g. "sports good, math bad" ). Popularity at Pomona is much more a self conception than it is a social construct.

Strangely, though, many people voiced similar views, though unwilling to deny that popularity remains a very real issue for college student.

Sarah Drewniak "02 expressed confusion as to why it should be so: "There kind of is popularity, but it’s odd that there is. What college is about is finding the people that you’re into, that you click with...and I don’t see why there is still the sense that you might want something from another group." Drewniak further suggested that "what makes a group of people popular is the idea that they have something that you want... maybe they throw cool parties that you want to go to."

Timothy Taylor "01 also noted that although "college takes away some of the factors of popularity, It’s not framed in the same sort of economic/geographical crap that high school is," conceptually at least, popularity still exists. "When someone is passing you on the sidewalk and says hello to you, and you have no idea who they are, you’re probably popular...Dressing well helps."

A common take on both high school and college popularity was that someone’s visibility, and knowledge of campus events, has a lot to do with their level of popularity. Lauren Shawn "01 said that a popular person would be "someone who is in tune with what’s going on with the media, art, music."

Shawn and others also noted that "People are a lot more concerned freshman year [with popularity]." Similarly, if freshmen and sophomores tend to think more along the lines of popularity, they also have a tendency to refer it back to high school in order to situate themselves. Lori Ramirez "03 said, "There’s definitely a group that, if we put them into high school, they’d be popular." Certainly, whether or not people would have been friends in high school is a common question amongst all college students, even in junior or senior year. The idea of popularity is an obvious subtext to this ‘type’-ological line of questioning. So, lets pretend. Taking all of the things that people noted, the prototypical popular college student would be someone who dresses well, is very attractive (this alone is apparently enough), visible on campus, abreast of campus and current events, and endlessly confident. Strangely enough, according to you all, this person doesn’t have to be nice, (maybe that has to be assumed), but they must, I repeat MUST, be laid back. (Hmpf- that’s what I get for coming to the West Coast).

Luckily, it’s no big deal. Popularity exists. You have it–great. You don’t–oh well, look at what happened to the Heathers.