conforming as a nonconformist?

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Walks in. Knows he's out of his league, doffs hat and retires, wishing you a pleasant evening.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Apologies for my crass interruption. I was trying to say that your discussion was too mind blowing for me to follow. Oh, and just wishing you a pleasant evening. No need for it at all. Apologies once again.

[feral chile]

Apologies for my crass interruption. I was trying to say that your discussion was too mind blowing for me to follow. Oh, and just wishing you a pleasant evening. No need for it at all. Apologies once again.

No need to apologise, a pleasant evening to you too

[feral chile]

It's the acknowledgment that resistance HAS to be a part of non-conforming that I struggle with.

well that's why I asked you to say what you mean by nonconforming, because the word has different connotations.

[mrtourette]

I don't understand how the idea of non-conforming is seemingly implausible. I understand what Neil is saying, but I don't agree that it applies to everyone.

Obviously there is an inevitable sense of conforming.. we all breathe air to live, we sleep, we eat, etc, which is a type of conforming, but I don't think that counts in relation to what we perceive as 'conforming'

You mean what you perceive as conforming - the exact definition will differ from person to person, which is why you 'don't understand' why some consider it implausible, and is pretty much what the discussion is about.

I think it's extremely rare if not impossible to be truly non-conformist as if you're defying mainstream convention in order not to conform you're still conforming (either consciously or sub-consciously) with an alternative idea, pholisophy, image, etc. that has been done before and is probably being done at that time all over the place. It's a bit harsh to appear to be so critical of a non-conformist attitude but it's not about proving people wrong, more about what constitutes or defines a state of non-conformance (hence the differences in opinion).

[eFestivals]

I don't understand how the idea of non-conforming is seemingly implausible. I understand what Neil is saying, but I don't agree that it applies to everyone.

then please tell me who it doesn't apply to, and how and why.

[eFestivals]

How do 'geniuses' come up with what to many would be unthinkable concepts, without some non-conformist thinking taking place?

first off, for that to work, you have to believe in the idea of genius'. I definitely don't.

Any new idea requires a pre-existing knowledge base, from which that new idea can be worked from. If that pre-existing knowledge is available to one person, then it's also available to others who might also come up with the same idea.

Of course, there is always someone that is first with that new idea, but that doesn't get to mean that the person who comes up with it first has some extra intelligence over others. It merely means that they were in the right circumstances before those others to trigger that new idea in them before it was triggered in others.

A great demonstration of the absence of genii is the propeller screw (as used to move boats thru water). There's quite a few people who claim to have come up with the idea first, and while that's a logical impossibility what does seem clear is that they each came up with the idea independently of the others.

(that's a scenario that is less likely in the modern world, merely because of modern communications. Nowadays, the person who does something first is far more likely to be identified as the first).

Were each of those people who 'invented' the propeller screw genii? Or were they just people with the pre-requisite knowledge to build a new idea from? I know which one I go with.

It's not non-conformist to try and figure out a solution to a problem you've encountered. That's just about as conforming as it gets within human nature.

The arts work differently, but it's ultimately much the same. A 'musical genius' is dependent on mass appreciation of their music to be identified as that genius, and you get that mass appreciation by creating output that conforms to the likings of the audience. They're not non-conformists, they're the ultimate conformers.

How did someone question that the world might not be flat?

by conforming to the idea that the world isn't flat.

[eFestivals]

Art isn't dependant on mass appreciation. Some it exists in isolation.

I was referencing "genius" in relation to art and not art itself.

For anyone in the art world to be widely hailed as a genius, it requires mass appreciation of their output.

saying that not-conforming is a form of conforming doesn't mean anything. If that's the case the words have no meaning.

OK, I can go with that.

But for you to make sense and for us to have a sensible discussion, you'll first need to define what *exactly* you're meaning by "conforming".

Me, I'm working off an absolutely literal use of the word. You can't be.

The 8 year old boy who goes to school wearing his sisters dress. What is he conforming to?

a male in a dress. Edited September 12, 2013 by eFestivals

[mrtourette]

The 8 year old boy who goes to school wearing his sisters dress. What is he conforming to?

It would of course depend on the motivations behind the actions, but if someone where doing something purely not to conform they would still be conforming to a stereotype (for example that of 'the rebel without a cause').

Your example is quite unusual and therefore hard to assess without further information, but while it could be an admirable (if unwise) 'fuck you' to the system when you drill down into the finer details there are still likely to be elements of conformity in any action, it just depends whether or not they outweigh or nullify the original non-conformance I suppose.

I think that's the crux of the discussion, do you applaud any unusual act as a non-conformist attitude or do you drill down to look at the reasons why and suggest that even while non-conforming there's still an element of conforming to an alternative idea/lifestyle/process/etc.

Edited September 12, 2013 by mrtourette

[mrtourette]

Absolutely. Conscious/deliberate non-conformance is usually anything but, as you're deliberatly conforming to an alternative stereotype/ideal in order to prove that you don't conform to another (usually more popular/mainstream) one. It's very rarely original. If there isn't deliberate non-conformance, but rather 'incidental' in the event of doing whaever the fuck you want and to hell with the consequences then yes you are probably still sub-consciously technically conforming to some stereotype or ideal somewhere but it would be pretty harsh to discredit or downplay it as it's genuinely different from the former example of 'non-conformance'.

The same as what feralchile was saying at the beginning, but I never understood what the point of not conforming, by conforming to another group of people's expectations of conforming is.

Well you should understand why people feel the need to latch on to an alternative culture or set of ideals in today's society without the danger of being genuinely original or non-conformist. That's the point of doing what you describe, the sense of well-being from a false impression of individuality (fighting the system) without the threat of exclusion (still being part of an alternative group). If they claim to be a non-conformist simply by conforming to an alternative then they're wrong but the point of and desire to seperate oneself from popular culture is obvious (they're just a bit deluded in the application of it).

Edited September 12, 2013 by mrtourette

[eFestivals]

at tony....

then please tell me who it doesn't apply to, and how and why.

Edited September 12, 2013 by eFestivals

[mrtourette]

I sort of understand it, and don't.....

what I don't understand is, if you don't like rules, why replace one set with another?

but then that's where some people's desire/need to belong comes in, I suppose.

Yep, like I said is the perceived and delusional win-win situation of being independent but still having the protection of the group. It's bollocks, but it's why people behave in the way they do.

[feral chile]

The 8 year old boy who goes to school wearing his sisters dress. What is he conforming to?

well he's not conforming to the school's regulations - you'd need to know more - his sister or friends might have put him up to it, his family might be supporting him, if their value system is anti authority...

we all conform to peer pressure in some shape of form, or we're labelled psychotic. And this boy would be in danger of being labelled psychotic, if he or society couldn't explain why he did it. And that explanation would need to be something society could relate to, and therefore prove he was conforming to society's perception of reality.

Edited September 12, 2013 by feral chile

[feral chile]

what if he just felt like going to school in his pyjamas? No peer pressure.

no parental intervention? That's peer pressure surely?

[feral chile]

the parents are fine with it

that's what I mean

[mrtourette]

If his parents are fine with their eight year-old boy going to school in a dress or pyjamas that then I imagine they're 'non-conformist' in all kinds of ways and therefore the eight year-old kid is conforming to his parents 'non-conformist' ideals and values. While he may not be conforming to the school's rules or norms he is conforming to the beliefs and behaviour system of the other great authority in his life. Of course he could say fuck you to his fake rebel 'fight the system' parents that think sending their boy to school in a dress is a responsible way to instill and anti-authoritarian streak in him and wear proper school uniform and not conform that way, but then he's be conforming to the school's rules.

I think that's the whole point, yes you can not conform to certain things but in doing so you inevitably conform to something else, either consciously or sub-consciously.

If his parents weren't fine with it then you go back to the discussion point of yesterday wehere he probably is non-conformist although if you wanted to get into the technicalities he is probably unwittingly conforming to something somewhere that has been done before, but it depends how deep you want to drill.

[eFestivals]

I think that's the whole point, yes you can not conform to certain things but in doing so you inevitably conform to something else, either consciously or sub-consciously.

spot on!

[mrtourette]

the parents neither approve or disapprove, he just likes wearing his pyjamas. He's not doing it as a concerted act of non-conformity, he's not even aware that others see it that way. But they do; to everyone except himself he isn't conforming.

I don't get why not conforming has to be perceived as an act of rebellion. Others might have difficulty seeing it any other way, but that's their issue.

This is a very hypothetical example that misses a lot of important information, so makes it hard to call. His parents neither approve nor disapprove so don't care? I find that hard to ignore. They might not care about him wearing his pyjamas per se, but but allowing him to do so outside of the home environment and into the school environment (where they know that it will be against rules and norms) instantly means they are taking a non-conformist stance, and therefore gives the boy something that he is conforming to (even sub-consciously), his parents desire to be different.

The boy might not give a shit or even be aware of non-conformance, but like I said that doesn't mean that he isn't conforming to something.

As for the point of rebellion, I think it comes down to what I said before about 'deliberate' and 'incidental' non-conformance. If you're taking such a stance for the sake of it then I think that always contains an element of initial rebellion, if you're just doing what the hell you want and that happens to go against the grain then it's not necessarily an initial act of rebellion (in this case by the boy), however I'd argue that as he's knowingly gone against the rules and conventions of the school with the blessing of his parents then the act of rebellion is theirs, and therefore that is what he's conforming to. I don't know what the case would be if they were just fucking idiots and think that sending a boy to school in a dress ot pyjamas is acceptable, I can't really entertain such an idiotic notion.

If you take the awareness out of it then it becomes harder and more spurious to accuse the boy of conformance. If the parents aren't aware of what he's doing and he is doing because he wants to without knowing it's an issue (which I also find hard to believe for an eight year-old boy), or for example the family have moved to a different country and he goes to school accidentally wearing the wrong colour tie or a colour jumper that culturally is offensive, then there's no intentional or defined act of non-conformance or any direct ideal or belief for him to be conforming to. Obviously the argument here is that everyone is always conforming to something but you can at least make the differentiation between the evident or obvious non-conformance and technical nit-picking non-conformance.

[eFestivals]

it's a difficult word to pin down (apparently).

My daughter used to want to wear certain clothes to school. She was aware of the rules. She didn't want to get into trouble and did little things that didn't conform to what the school wanted. She didn't do them becasue she wanted to rebel, she'd have been much happier if the rules allowed her to wear what she wanted. She rebelled, but that wasn't her motive. I'm not sure what she was conforming 'to' by not conforming.

she was conforming to whatever it was that made her want to wear different clothes to school. Perhaps she'd seen some 'cool' kids wearing different things, and was trying to emulate them?

Whatever it was, it's hugely unlikely that the desire to be different to the other kids was something that was all from her own mind. Something somewhere would have influenced her choices, and she was conforming to those influences.

[mrtourette]

What Neil said.

Also, what was it that made her decide that doing what she wanted to do was more important than the school rules?

Edited September 13, 2013 by mrtourette

[mrtourette]

you're just hypothesisng here, and getting it wrong. She'd have been happy if everyone was wearing the same as her. It wasn't a desire to be different at all.

Maybe if you gave us some information we could show what she was conforming to rather than hypothesising, but as Neil says I bet there was some kind of motivation for choosing what she wanted to wear other than simply 'I want to wear this'. I imagine nearly every school kid has done it at some point and it's usually to fit in ('conform') to a social group or image other than that of the school (hence simultaneously conforming and not conforming).

Edited September 13, 2013 by mrtourette

[eFestivals]

you're just hypothesisng here, and getting it wrong. She'd have been happy if everyone was wearing the same as her. It wasn't a desire to be different at all.

I'm hypothosising, yep. I only have what you're telling me to work from.

She'd have been happy if everyone was wearing the same as her. It wasn't a desire to be different at all.

In which case it's not very different to what I said anyway. She was still wanting to conform to a particular style of dressing; whether or not she was happy for others to do the same isn't really of any relevance to that.

But the fact that you say "She'd have been happy if everyone was wearing the same as her" is merely her conforming to something, and then not being bothered if others also conform to the same thing.

[mrtourette]

What difference does that make. Who's nit-picking now? It seems the word needs banning, as it has no use.

No need to get so defensive. Maybe you shouldn't have brought your daughter into the conversation?

The point was what was the motivation behind her placing more importance on what she wanted to do that the rules and norms of the environment. It has everything to do with the issue of non-conformance.

[feral chile]

huh...? well this is weird... you just keep saying by not conforming she is conforming.

can I say I sympathise with your stance. I see peer pressure around me all the time, where others don't, and I like to pride myself on having an independent mind.

But, galling as it may be, and certainly galling as it is from my own perspective, I'm a product of my culture, which values independence. So even by valuing independent thought, I'm conforming to societal values.

It's not exactly about rebelling, it's about acknowledging that none of us are free from influence, and that most of it is so internalised we're not even aware of it.

That's what makes your example of your 8year old difficult - if his parents don't care what he wears to school, it suggests a total lack of awareness, conscious or unconscious, of expectations.

I do have a problem with it, conformity to me equals conditioning and social control, and I don't like it. But the very nature of it means that for it to work, you're unaware of it, because it's part of you.

Edited September 13, 2013 by feral chile

[feral chile]

I'm not being defensive. I thought you were accusing me off being awkward.

The motivation was that she wanted to wear what she wanted to wear. She thought the rules were trivial, and she got away with it. That wasn't the motivation though (to get away with it).

She probably knew you'd support her though. Just like my children, who were into different causes, knew I'd support their right to their own views. because that's how we've treated them, and we have these expectations of them, and them of us.

I've mentioned this before on these boards - having brought my children up to be self governing, I expected them to rebel a lot more than they did - they were pretty mainstream conformist, really - no serious drugs, pregnancies, etc., and when I asked my daughter why they'd been so well behaved, she said that because we thought so highly of them, they couldn't bear to disappoint us.

So, nonconformist parents instilled complete conformity in their children - and there's the irony of trying to be independent.