I also thought of this while reading Spin magazine yesterday. They mentioned that, at this years Lollapalooza, there was a huge banner ad for Comcast Cable that said "Here we are now, entertain us." Somehow, this was supposed to represent the corporatization of some underground culture, but let me tell you, nobody is un-corporatized. Yes, even you. And you there in the back with your stupid tattoos and indie label record collection.
Here's why. Contrary to popular opinion, we do not live in the land of the individualist. We live in the land of the reactionary individualist. I mean, this dates back all the way to the Revolutionary War! The independence fighters were just reacting to the rule of the British. Today, we hear about people, and yes I'm looking at you Ian McKay, that stick it to the man by adopting a DIY, independent lifestyle. But guess what, if it weren't for the corporations you are fighting against, you never would have done it. They have you wrapped around their little finger just as much as they have those whom you look down upon as corporate stooges. They say jump, and you say, I'll jump higher in the opposite direction. In fact, your life might even be MORE controlled by the corporations than are the lives of those who don't care at all. They know who you are and they know how to market to you. Why else do you think most "non-conformists" dress pretty much the same, like the same things, and talk the same way? Because there conforming, just to a slightly different norm than are most people.
To sum it up, non-conformance isn't being anti-anything. That just lets whatever your anti- towards control you life. Non-conformance is just not giving a rip either way about anything and just doing whatever you want.
And no, I am not a non-conformist.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Hmm, I respectfully disagree with your penultimate sentence, but I'm going to have to formulate my thoughts better before I can explain.
also, is that really what you think, or are you mixing in a little sarcastic bravado with your actual opinions?
Just a little sarcastic bravado, as usual. But the gist of it, I actually believe. I don't think that letting your life be defined by being against something makes you a non-conformist.
Also, I am looking with both anticipation and fear on your coming response. I always like to hear what you think, but I'm afraid my argument will whither under your incisive commentary...
okay, here goes. I agree with that statement. "Letting your life be defined by being against something" does NOT make you a nonconformist. However, I heartily disagree with your definition of nonconformity. Noncomformity, to me, boils down to formulating one's own opinions on everything. These opinions may or may not be the same as popular opinions, but they will not "conform" to popular opinion, that is, one must not believe something to be true or just or right simply because most people do. That's not to say that a true nonconformist will never hold popular opinion to be true, he often will, but he will have thoroughly examined the opinion before adopting it, he won't have adopted it because it's popular. A nonconformist may indeed be influenced by other's opinions. It would be delusional to think that every idea he has is original. He must appreciate the genius of others and be willing to change his opinion if necessary. He will read a book not expecting to agree or disagree with what is written, whether it is written by a favorite author, or by someone he has never agreed with. He will be able to digest what is written, consider it, and formulate his own opinion about it. A nonconformist may call himself a republican or democrat if he agrees for the most part with the party's ideology, but he will strive to never adopt a partyline opinion without thinking it through. I truly do believe that who would be a man must be a nonconformist. I do think that the idea is somewhat idealistic, and I will never fully acheive it, but I certainly will strive to think for myself in all things and I hope that you can agree that we should teach our son to do the same. I will never be the type of nonconformist that doesn't pay his taxes because he believes them to be unjust, but I applaud him. We need to learn to be able to think for ourselves, especially when it comes to those impolite conversation topics, religion and politics. I think that Mars Hill strives to be nonconformist in that we do not necesarily reject everything that our fundamentalist fathers taught us, nor do we swallow it whole. We attempt to evaluate it for ourselves. It is not about "doing whatever the hell you want" it is about evaluating the popular opinion about what is right and making your own decisions. I can't really see how your definition fits into mine at all. Perhaps you could expound on it?
About the rest of your post, I mostly agree. Our society, in many cases seems to have confused nonconformity with rebellion. Automatically dismissing popular opinion without giving it a second thought has absolutely nothing to do with nonconformity. The word for it is rebellion, plain and simple. In some ways, I think that it trivializes the philosophy of nonconformity to apply it to clothes and music, but you can to some extent. The rebellious masses need to learn that someone who loves the number one song is not necessarily conforming and that liking indie music because it's inde is not being nonconformist at all.
Since I know the intent with which I wrote that penultimate sentence, I can see how my definition both fits into yours and seems antithetical to it.
What I meant when I said "whatever the hell you want." I meant that you would look at things and decide what you wanted to do based on your own observations, not the observations of others. However, I can easily see how what I said could be interpreted to mean thoughtless actions for no good reason.
I do think you make a phenomenal point when you say that one would be foolish to NOT use the opinions of others. And I heartily agree that we should teach our son to "question everything" but to "hate nothing."
okay, but you also said, "not giving a rip either way", which kind of seems the opposite.
true non-conformity con only exist between 2 humans in a bubble unaffected by each other. And being unaffected as a human is almost like living without breathing... we're all affected by each other... and we conform to each other in some way. That's community (it happens whether we want it to or not... even for the hermit who has memories of his mother whether he wants those memories or not-- they are there).
So true non-conformity exists only for as long as one's choices are not made by counter-reaction. Once we TRY to not conform, we're certainly defined by the shape we're "not" conforming to. I agree.
It's like athism, when you live by the idea of something that is "not," then you're actually acknowledging and being controlled by the "not" that you claim "is not." And thus... whatever you imagine is "not" actually "is." This is the philosophical notion that this kind of athism cannot honestly exist in the human mind/heart/will (called weak atheism-- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Weak_and_strong_atheism) because it is "impossible to prove a negative." And I would agree.
Some think Freud also talks about this idea with with his theory of "reaction formation." I think Freud would agree with you Schuyler. And some philosophers, would too... I think the likelihood of non-conformity existing is only as long as someone truely does not care about anyone anywhere for any length of time... and that is only possible for fractional periods of time... even murderers care.... they care enough to destroy... total detachment doesn't exist... or am I now acknowledging it's existence by saying that?
Post a Comment