Manosh Chowdhury replied 6th Jun '16:
This question risks of falling into rhetoric, as the authority of the rejecting entity has not been assumed here. There must be a huge difference between being ‘rejected’, regardless of its meaning perceived by the actors at that point, by a corporate employer in an interview board, and by a boy or girl in some potential affair or psychosexual relationship, for say.
‘Rejection’ has become such a serious issue precisely because of the rise of ‘individualism’ in making the modern personhood and subject. So I am of the opinion that dealing with ‘rejection’ has lot to do with sheer understanding of the contemporary power structures and agencies. The process is political as well as philosophical.
I, precisely because of my social background, had to face a series of ‘rejection’ in my entire life, if that is the right concept to use. And on every occasion, I came out with more acute understanding of the power-structure with its complex expressions.
But I guess the question is partly related with the ‘rejections’ that are evident in psychosexual atmosphere. I think people need to understand many shades of what is known as ‘laws of attraction’. On consensual basis, one has to be prepared for ‘rejections’ for it works only in a fluid manner. Any approach has enormous possibilities, almost infinite ones. On the other hand, any approach can end up with producing a dead-end. The psychosexual domain mostly is formed by the playfulness of the words/language. The course of actions often has many open-ended possibilities. While someone is vulnerable with probable ‘rejection’, s/he must be playing with words so that no ‘rejection’ would be possible. And of course, ‘play’ should not be taken as a moral; this is exactly as in ‘laws of attraction’.
I would like to know what ‘rejection’ actually is meant here.