Nonconformity and conformity..agree or disagree? Options

[mmmchocolate]

No matter how hard one tires to be a Nonconformist, absolute individuality is unattainable. The ones who go against the flow will never find themselves alone, there will always be another who has gone before them, who has tried the same things. Pure nonconformity virtually does not exist, but if you look at religion, each is nonconforming within itself.
Dressing differently than others would be classified as nonconformity. One may be utterly different from their surroundings and be extremely individual, but somewhere else in the world someone else feels or looks the exact same. Furthermore, if one is classified as a nonconformist you are a conformist. How is this so? In a group of nonconformists, each individual is conforming to nonconforming. Pure nonconformity cannot exist in this universe, and if one possibly achieves this feat, they would be rejected by society, considering they do not exile themselves first.
“Whoso would be a man must also be a nonconformist.” This is neither a statement nor a question; it is more of an opinion. Although, in my opinion everyone is a conformist, there are nonconformists within certain areas. For instance, schools have those certain members who are rejected or cast themselves out; they are the nonconformists. Another example of this is that every clique within a school or organization is nonconforming within itself. The group of jocks and the group of Goths may consider one another nonconformists against each other. Small groups of nonconformists exist everywhere.
Wherever one goes in life, one will run into a person who believes they are nonconformists. This person(s) will believe they are unique in every way and that no one feels the same way that they do. They do not want sympathy, they do not want attention, and they just want to be left alone. These people will honestly tell you this is how they feel and that they are being nonconformists. To me, this is FALSE! They are NOT the only ones who feel depressed or hated or however they are feeling. There are hundreds maybe millions of people who feel the exact same way. Ultimate nonconformity is impossible.
If one looks for nonconformity, one could look at religion. Christianity has Christians who are nonconformists to, lets say, Hinduism. And Hinduism has Hindus who are nonconformists to Christianity. Any religion would classify another religion as nonconformity. One could say that Charles Darwin was the first and possibly the only true nonconformist, to our immediate knowledge that is. It is all relative to what one believes and has faith in.
Though “pure” nonconformity is extremely rare, nonconformity needs to exist for a society to function properly. If every single person conforms to the exact same thing, life would be dull, boring, and bleak. It would be like sitting in a room with twenty other individuals, each sitting in the same direction, wearing masks and the exact same clothing. You cannot move, talk, or do anything. A world without nonconformists would be hell. Every person has a personality, and in order for that personality to thrive one must not conform to at least some things. A little nonconformity brings life into the everyday life. It is what separates us from the norm, and makes us the individuals that God intended from the very beginning.
If one is classified as a nonconformist you are a conformist. One may be utterly different from their surroundings and be extremely individual, but somewhere else in the world someone else feels or looks the exact same. Although, in my opinion everyone is a conformist, there are nonconformists within certain areas. For instance, schools have those certain members who are rejected or cast themselves out; they are the nonconformists. Wherever one goes in life, one will run into a person who believes they are nonconformists. If one looks for nonconformity, one could look at religion. Nonconformity is not a bad thing, it is a very good thing, but being a conformists in some areas is also a very good thing.

This is my opinion----^

I recently wrote this for a school paper , but I want some outside input...

What do you think? Are there nonconformists in society or is everyone a conformist? And is it good or bad?

Get the brain gears turning!

[96bluevert]

Didn't read through the whole thing, but here's my stand on it:

Everyone is similar in some ways and everyone is different in other ways. Your individuality comes from everything that makes you, you. For example, we all have a similar interest in cars on this site, however some of us are also into (lets say) action movies while others might not be. I could come up with alot more examples, but basically when we put all the parts of our personality together, that makes one individual person. A personality that no one else has.

That make sense?

So really there is no confomity and nonconformity imo, it's just what people choose to do based on thier own personality.

[Taskbot]

Hahaha oh man, yeah I'm a social scientist so I can totally debate this topic forever, and both sides too. So I'm going to try and present my opinion or my understanding of conformity.

Conformity is such a broad umbrella term though or if not an umbrella term its really vague. What do you define conformity as? I think most people would agree that conformity is any action to seek the approval of the culture, or to be accepted in the culture as opposed to being forced to accept an idea as true. That is called compliance. So when you first have to discuss this you have to come up with a reasonable definition of conformity and how you define it is really crucial to your entire discussion.

Now comes the fun crap. If we define conformity as such we can start to play with this question a bit more by asking other questions. If your goal is to conform and you are still ostracized by dominant culture have you conformed? Were you successful? If I remember correctly, we discuss conformity in relation to three things, Dominant Culture, Subculture and Anti-culture. Dominant culture being the unthinking brainwashed fully conformed masses, subculture being dominantly in the norm with some outside quirks (think goths, most goths are pretty dark looking and bleak but they still believe in justice and human rights) and anti-cultures which are radically opposed to dominant culture or outside of dominant culture entirely. (think of 'hippy' colonies or radical feminist colonies)

Okay now back to that question. I think that if you've failed entirely at conformity or dominant culture ostracizes you entirely, you are a non-conformist or part of an anti-culture. What I mean by this is that you're so opposed to culture or culture is so opposed to you that you are labeled an outcast. So that answers your question, yeah I think its possible to be an non-conformist, be definition of not being able to conform.

That being said, over time you might be given a chance to conform to your own anti-culture. If there are enough of you that were segregated from society, you might eventually cross paths with some like minded individuals. When you find these individuals, you might even start your own community and conform to the identity of that community and as your community grows, so does your voice in influencing dominant culture. The gay rights movement is a particularly good example of this and some cities even have particular community designated areas where a person can live in the neighborhood of similar minded individuals and other people can move there seeking refuge from oppression.

So I've kind of argued both sides. Can you be a non-conformist? Yeah probably. Would you be a non-conformist for a very long time? No, hopefully not. Hopefully you can manage to find a like-minded group to conform to. As for the question of is it good or bad? I hope you mean your argument and not conformity because your argument is pretty sound and I have been awake for 18 hours and I can't think straight. (this should be evident above) So if you want my opinion, get some sources. Hit up some social sciences books that discuss dominant culture or even social psychology.

[x_itchy_b_x]

nonconformity and being original are two separate things that i think your trying to snowball into one.
conforming depends on what your society currently says is normal and expected.
they are pretty vague terms and open to alot of interpretation though that's for sure.

[forkee]

to nonconform is to conform

example:
2 people disagree on a topic

yet

they agree to disagree

so it is impossible to disagree (or nonconform) to everything

[Taskbot]

to nonconform is to conform

example:
2 people disagree on a topic

yet

they agree to disagree

so it is impossible to disagree (or nonconform) to everything

that's just making the definition of conformity too vague. Conformity is an active choice not a passive choice. You actively chose to conform. They don't read a post like mine and say "That taskbot, he really represents dominant culture and holds a lot of power. If I agree with his post, I might be able to gain some of that cultural capital or avoid being discriminated against because my world-view is different." They probably don't even read my post. Someone who takes this position does so, even before entering the forum and posting. Conformity of posts has nothing to do with this topic.

Though you last point is valid, you used a hilarious premise that I had to call you out for.

It is impossible to be a non-conformist forever, I think. Unless you live a very short life as a complete social outcast or have anti-social personality disorder it would be pretty hard to live an entire life where you find nobody you want to be like or an ideal you want to conform to.

[lagos]

OMG, you're becoming Goth! .lol.

[Supersprynt]

I think some of your paper is off base. The whole idea of religion is conformity. You compare Hindus to Christians but that's not accurate. You have to take into consideration geography and social circles. Neither Hinduism nor Christianity have a monopoly on social expectations unless you're from an area all Christian, or all Hindu. Your paper even assumes the existence of a god... for a school paper I'm basically shocked at this.

Not only that, you state that if your a non-conformist, your a conformist. Then you go onto say that there are nonconformists in certain areas.

You seem to contradict yourself in just about every aspect...

Conformity is the changing of ones' beliefs based upon what society expects them to believe. Saying Christianity is non-conformity to Hinduism is wildly inaccurate unless you were to say in a Hindu society, a Christian becomes a Hindu. THAT'S conformity. When social pressures change your opinions for you.

I'm an atheist, in which; especially in this country, I can say that I am a non-conformist. With the religion heavy society we live in I refuse to have my beliefs changed. But because there are other atheists all over the country that makes me conformist to them? No, because we are, by far, a minority. Social expectations in the U.S. are that you are religious. Put me in Germany, Sweden or Norway and I lose that stigma because non-theists make up nearly 1/2 the population compared to about 3% here. So conformity weighs heavily on the society you are a part of.

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Dec 3, 2008 - 10:25 AM

[3WayStunna]

to nonconform is to conform

example:
2 people disagree on a topic

yet

they agree to disagree

so it is impossible to disagree (or nonconform) to everything

that's just making the definition of conformity too vague. Conformity is an active choice not a passive choice. You actively chose to conform. They don't read a post like mine and say "That taskbot, he really represents dominant culture and holds a lot of power. If I agree with his post, I might be able to gain some of that cultural capital or avoid being discriminated against because my world-view is different." They probably don't even read my post. Someone who takes this position does so, even before entering the forum and posting. Conformity of posts has nothing to do with this topic.

Though you last point is valid, you used a hilarious premise that I had to call you out for.

It is impossible to be a non-conformist forever, I think. Unless you live a very short life as a complete social outcast or have anti-social personality disorder it would be pretty hard to live an entire life where you find nobody you want to be like or an ideal you want to conform to.

Taskbot, ive been trying to read and keep up with all you have said, and I have to admit that its all pretty interesting, but has it ever crossed you, that maybe one can choose to follow nothing but themselves, therefore they are choosing not to conform to anything.

And i do belive this beats the mindset that, WHAT IF, there were a group of individuals that all shared that point of veiw...hmm, you try to get 2 ppl with radical veiws unbiased by anything around them, to form a structure that is beneficial to themselves, and following the mindset i am trying to explain, no they wouldnt do anything to benefit each other unless due to them not caring. i mean they are in it for themselves to follow their own thoughts, or desires...ignoring those of others, and choosing to just do what they want...no if want they want happens to be in common, is that conforming....it sounds stupid to be like that, considering there are countless situations where that would actually be healthy to them, but if they were true non-conformist, why would they form a conforming structered level of trust, for any reason? It would be impossible. But that is with two individuals....back to just one person, what if a group of other chose to follow that one non-conforming individual. Then what...would that make him a conformist...no, i would think not...he isnt the one conforming to any ideal except his own...but those that choose to follow him, are the conformist...just like you said, it is an active choice to do say, and if they actively choose to do so then, yea....

Think of the movie fight club...i mean really, brad pitt, didnt follow any social standards, and didnt really care about those beneath him...those who choose to follow him. only himself...that attitude though, was just what i was talkin about though...

Is that possible, like you said yourself, yes it is...its just not healthy, in some cases....either to them, or those around them...

I mean, the definition of non-conformity is basically that...its a thought pattern, a choice to choose to think differntly, radically or not, against convention.
Man my head is hurting...did any of this even make sense?

[Supersprynt]

I think a lot of you guys don't really understand what conformity is in the first place.

It's not a thought pattern, it's not a choice to think radically, because radical in one sense might be normal in another. It's a phenomenon in which people who hold a certain set of beliefs/behaviors/ideals are influenced to match those in a particular group or society.

Let's make this as simple as possible.

If there are a group of blue squares, and a red square enters the group and changes to blue - that is conformity. If the red square remains red whilst all others are blue - this is non-conformity.

Sometimes people conform without even knowing it. While some "non-conformists" will go against the grain and remain "red", for a lack of a better term.

To be a completely non-conformist you would have to have zero contact with any society whatsoever. Everyone will conform in one way or another.

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Dec 4, 2008 - 10:20 AM

[Taskbot]

to nonconform is to conform

example:
2 people disagree on a topic

yet

they agree to disagree

so it is impossible to disagree (or nonconform) to everything

that's just making the definition of conformity too vague. Conformity is an active choice not a passive choice. You actively chose to conform. They don't read a post like mine and say "That taskbot, he really represents dominant culture and holds a lot of power. If I agree with his post, I might be able to gain some of that cultural capital or avoid being discriminated against because my world-view is different." They probably don't even read my post. Someone who takes this position does so, even before entering the forum and posting. Conformity of posts has nothing to do with this topic.

Though you last point is valid, you used a hilarious premise that I had to call you out for.

It is impossible to be a non-conformist forever, I think. Unless you live a very short life as a complete social outcast or have anti-social personality disorder it would be pretty hard to live an entire life where you find nobody you want to be like or an ideal you want to conform to.

Taskbot, ive been trying to read and keep up with all you have said, and I have to admit that its all pretty interesting, but has it ever crossed you, that maybe one can choose to follow nothing but themselves, therefore they are choosing not to conform to anything.

And i do belive this beats the mindset that, WHAT IF, there were a group of individuals that all shared that point of veiw...hmm, you try to get 2 ppl with radical veiws unbiased by anything around them, to form a structure that is beneficial to themselves, and following the mindset i am trying to explain, no they wouldnt do anything to benefit each other unless due to them not caring. i mean they are in it for themselves to follow their own thoughts, or desires...ignoring those of others, and choosing to just do what they want...no if want they want happens to be in common, is that conforming....it sounds stupid to be like that, considering there are countless situations where that would actually be healthy to them, but if they were true non-conformist, why would they form a conforming structered level of trust, for any reason? It would be impossible. But that is with two individuals....back to just one person, what if a group of other chose to follow that one non-conforming individual. Then what...would that make him a conformist...no, i would think not...he isnt the one conforming to any ideal except his own...but those that choose to follow him, are the conformist...just like you said, it is an active choice to do say, and if they actively choose to do so then, yea....

Think of the movie fight club...i mean really, brad pitt, didnt follow any social standards, and didnt really care about those beneath him...those who choose to follow him. only himself...that attitude though, was just what i was talkin about though...

Is that possible, like you said yourself, yes it is...its just not healthy, in some cases....either to them, or those around them...

I mean, the definition of non-conformity is basically that...its a thought pattern, a choice to choose to think differntly, radically or not, against convention.
Man my head is hurting...did any of this even make sense?

I like your ideas. It would be almost impossible to find out though. You would have to find someone so radical and out there, that all throughout their childhood they refused to play into the ideas and roles that were assigned to them. They would need to have no gender identity, they would need to skip over all of Erikson's or Freud's developmental stages (Psychosexual if you are a freudian; since this has a lot to do with conforming). This sounds like an interesting individual though. This is probably moot though, don't pay attention I am just outlining pure non-conformity.

Okay as for this individual. If one acts in their own way all the time yeah they would be a non-conformist and like Tylder Durden probably considered a revolutionary. They wouldn't be a conformist so long as they were always self-serving, whether it helps people around them or hinders. So long as they always act in their own way, they are a non-conformist. But Tyler Durden was an alternate identity of the narrator so....

My head hurts and you're making me think of Objectivism. Objectivist philosophy believes that you are always acting in your own way to achieve your own goals and that relationships are a construct of trade. Wether it be goods, or money or a feeling, you are always getting something from a relationship. Even a single sided relationship can be said to be producing something and giving it to you. I love my car, does my car love me? No, however I do get something back from the love I give to my car, I get the feeling of pleasure every time I drive it. No matter what you do in Objectivism, you are doing it for yourself.

Is this really relevant though? Not really until you throw in the context of conformity. Would an objectivity consider conformity? I am unsure. Conformity might not even have a meaning in Objectivism, it might just be a means to an end. I don't think Ayn Rand would hold the same weight on conformity that most others would, especially if the end result was being a non-conformist. So if your two individuals were Objectivists, they might not be conforming. Trust or even conformity (if they did) would be basically to further their own needs and the means to achieve their personal goals (which might be to be a non-conformist).

Alirght, I kind of give up. I have confused myself however in a backwards way I think I've answered your initial question and probably proved the point. Yes, it is entirely possible for someone to be a complete non-conformist... but its contextual almost. What might appear to be conformity to an outsider, might in fact be the person themselves trying to achieve their own goal. I think I need some time to consider this and come up with a concrete idea about conformity because even though my one definition I would say you can't be a non-conformist, by another definition I could say its all based on intent. Which means anything I've previously said may be conflicting with what I'm saying now... whoops.

I am not going through this post and proof reading it, its going to come out as confusing garbled ideas.

[Supersprynt]

Oops, didn't mean to double post.

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Dec 4, 2008 - 10:39 AM

[Supersprynt]

My head hurts and you're making me think of Objectivism. Objectivist philosophy believes that you are always acting in your own way to achieve your own goals and that relationships are a construct of trade. Wether it be goods, or money or a feeling, you are always getting something from a relationship. Even a single sided relationship can be said to be producing something and giving it to you. I love my car, does my car love me? No, however I do get something back from the love I give to my car, I get the feeling of pleasure every time I drive it. No matter what you do in Objectivism, you are doing it for yourself.

Yes and no. Every man is an end to himself, which basically means you have control over yourself and no others and your own personal happiness & self interest hold supreme importance. So what you're saying that a person is always out to gain something for himself could be true, in a way, these could very well be unconscious decisions. It is also only 1/4 of the objectivist view. But you could also apply this to every action ever anywhere, so it's not going to really help the argument with conformity.

Let me add: I don't agree that there is a such thing as a total non-conformist. Everyone conforms in one way or another. Whether it's following laws, doing what your parents say, being the religion of everyone else, wearing the latest fashion...You'd have to be an alien from a different planet to be a non-conformist.

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Dec 4, 2008 - 10:43 AM

[Taskbot]

My head hurts and you're making me think of Objectivism. Objectivist philosophy believes that you are always acting in your own way to achieve your own goals and that relationships are a construct of trade. Wether it be goods, or money or a feeling, you are always getting something from a relationship. Even a single sided relationship can be said to be producing something and giving it to you. I love my car, does my car love me? No, however I do get something back from the love I give to my car, I get the feeling of pleasure every time I drive it. No matter what you do in Objectivism, you are doing it for yourself.

Yes and no. Every man is an end to himself, which basically means you have control over yourself and no others and your own personal happiness & self interest hold supreme importance. So what you're saying that a person is always out to gain something for himself could be true, in a way, these could very well be unconscious decisions. It is also only 1/4 of the objectivist view. But you could also apply this to every action ever anywhere, so it's not going to really help the argument with conformity.

Let me add: I don't agree that there is a such thing as a total non-conformist. Everyone conforms in one way or another. Whether it's following laws, doing what your parents say, being the religion of everyone else, wearing the latest fashion...You'd have to be an alien from a different planet to be a non-conformist.

Yeah, I guess I am oversimplifying things. I guess we could probably spend all day talking about philosophy and I am trying to avoid that by kind of dumbing things down... I shouldn't do that. Yeah, in practice is it probably impossible to find a complete non-conformist but that's really based on definition. Also certain laws do fall under conformity however most fall under compliance. Any laws that aren't actively enforced could be considered conformity if you follow them, however when the are laws that you must follow or else... that is compliance and not conformity.

[GriffGirl]

To be a completely non-conformist you would have to have zero contact with any society whatsoever. Everyone will conform in one way or another.

I disagree with this for two reasons. One, is that in your first post, you hit it on the head in my opinion by asking what the definition is of conformity. You basically summarized it by saying it's subjective and contingent on one's environment. I actually agree with this completely, and is exactly how I'd define conformity. However you contradict yourself in the quoted example, because without ANY contact with society, there's nothing to measure against; to conform to or against; therefor the person wouldn't be either. HOWEVER—that brings into question adaptivity. Does adapting to ones completely socially devoid environment equate conformity? How is mentally, emotionally and psychological adapting to an environment devoid of other people any different to mentally, emotionally and psychologically adapting to an environment inundated by people?

[Supersprynt]

I see what you're coming from, but I don't see the contradiction, because I'd be saying its objective instead of subjective. Whereas, all I'm saying is that for one to be non-conformist one would have to eliminate the ability to be conformist altogether. In other words: to be non-conformist, conformity would have to not exist.

I use those terms in absolution, which I don't believe exist to begin with. I don't think someone would be a 100% conformist or 100% non-conformist. People are all different and every person has a different level of conformity. I feel as though this is something that could go on and on and on w/o a definitive answer.

You sorta lost me in the end... Are you saying that adaptation is a form of conformity? I guess you could try to make that argument; that conformity is a form of adaptation. That for one to survive peacefully they may have to conform. Depends on the society and level of stress a "black sheep" would create. But conformity also relies upon a social schema so adapting to a society-less schema is adapting only to environment, and therefore isn't wouldn't be considering "conforming".

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Dec 4, 2008 - 2:39 PM

[lagos]

Here is my view on the topic at hand...

[saleeka]

in my opinion, Non-conformists are people who are conciously aware that decisions they make are likely viewed negativly by others and that negative concequences are possible... I think far too many people associate negative feelings with "non-conformity", however...

[lagos]

this is a silly topic.
people conform every single day. its what we do.
most of us dont really want to wake up at 6am to go to work, but we do it anyway.
i dont like paying for gas, but i conform and do it like all the rest of you.

face it, we are all sheep.

[GriffGirl]

I see what you're coming from, but I don't see the contradiction, because I'd be saying its objective instead of subjective. Whereas, all I'm saying is that for one to be non-conformist one would have to eliminate the ability to be conformist altogether. In other words: to be non-conformist, conformity would have to not exist.

I use those terms in absolution, which I don't believe exist to begin with. I don't think someone would be a 100% conformist or 100% non-conformist. People are all different and every person has a different level of conformity. I feel as though this is something that could go on and on and on w/o a definitive answer.

You sorta lost me in the end... Are you saying that adaptation is a form of conformity? I guess you could try to make that argument; that conformity is a form of adaptation. That for one to survive peacefully they may have to conform. Depends on the society and level of stress a "black sheep" would create. But conformity also relies upon a social schema so adapting to a society-less schema is adapting only to environment, and therefore isn't wouldn't be considering "conforming".

I'm not necessarily saying that adapting is conforming, I was just raising the question as to whether it is or not. Just like all of this - it just depends on one's definition of conforming is.

I just thought of something. I say it tongue-in-cheek, but there's some truth to it. You know who was a non conformist? The Unibomber. I think it's definitely safe to say that that guy was a non conformist.