A rock band, a priest and a psychologist.
No, this isn't the beginning to a joke that has these characters walking into a bar. Rather, each of these has an interesting statement about the importance of celebrating our uniqueness and the corresponding dangers of conformity.
A few months ago I attended a concert of my favorite band from high school, who I last saw sometime in the mid-1980s: the progressive rock group Rush. As I was singing along (with a bunch of other middle-age white guys) to the song "Subdivisions," I was struck by the following lyrics: "Nowhere is the dreamer or misfit so alone. Subdivisions -- in the high school halls, in the shopping malls. Conform or be cast out. Subdivisions -- in the basement bars, in the backs of cars. Be cool or be cast out." The song is about the pressures we experience in our society to conform, from the peer pressure we face in school to the suburbs we live in as adults.
Listening to this song, I was immediately reminded of a talk I had attended the previous week by Bishop John Shelby Spong. Bishop Spong described how anthropologists explain religious intolerance as resulting from our human tendency to live in tribes. From an evolutionary standpoint, by sticking close together with those who are most like us genetically (especially our family members, but this extends to our tribe as well), we can better protect our genes from outsiders -- i.e. those not like us, those from other tribes. When I studied religion at Oxford, I read Emile Durkheim, the father of modern sociology, who examined the religious practices of aborigines in Australia. He noted that each tribe had their own deity (often represented by an animal in totemic form), and that these tribal deities came to represent the tribes themselves. He extrapolated this research to the larger world religions and equated God with society. In other words, our religious identities are tied to our societal (or tribal) identities and vice versa.
In religion, we use the word orthodoxy to describe what is the traditional view or doctrine of a religion. It's interesting to look closer at this word: orthos is the Greek word for "right, straight, or true," while doxa means "opinion." In other words, orthodoxy means the right or true opinion. For centuries the church has defined what this right opinion is, but depending on what church you go to will determine the specifics of what is orthodox. I often use the expression "Country Club Christianity" to describe the "us versus them" mentality we often see in our religion. We can clearly hear this mentality when people start to talk about who is "saved" and who isn't. In other words, to be in the club you must conform to a particular doctrine.
Throughout history, those who had the audacity to propose ideas that conflicted with the church's teachings (like Galileo who was condemned by the Catholic Church for his scientific theories) were referred to as heretics. I find it ironic that the word heretic is derived from the Greek hairetikos, which means "one who is able to choose." Thus, choosing to think for oneself in many religious contexts is a dangerous path that can lead to censorship, derision, expulsion or, tragically, even death.
We often think of the U.S. as the country that embraces individualism more than others. Our cultural icon of the "self-made person" who embraces "the American dream" is part of the mythos of our society. Yet the pressure in our individualistic society to conform is still immense. Just ask any teenager about the politics of middle or high school, and you're sure to get an earful about the pressures to act, dress and talk like the others. Former Yale psychologist Irving Janis used the term groupthink to describe the phenomenon of the conformity of group decision making. Groups of people naturally stress cohesiveness rather than individuality in their discussions. Groupthink, Janis said, often results in poor decision making because the most creative and unique (and thus non-conforming) people and ideas are excluded or silenced from the group. Much of this silencing comes from self-censorship. Most of us censor ourselves when we sense that the group we are part of is moving in another direction.
Who are your heroes? MLK? Gandhi? Mother Theresa? A former teacher or coach? A grandparent? My guess is that, whoever these people are, they were not conformists. Greatness does not arise from towing the popular line. I'm not calling for open rebellion here, but rather for us to embrace differences both within ourselves and those around us. I hesitate to even bring up the word diversity because it is not only overused, but it also conjures up images of political correctness that can be just as silencing as the conformity of the majority. Instead, why can't we encourage those aspects of ourselves and others that are unique? Can we find fascination and beauty in these differences? What can we learn from them? In the global and multicultural world we live in today, can we truly live by the words of Jesus (an extreme non-conformist!) to love our neighbors, especially when they do not look or think like us? How do you feel pressure in your own life to conform, to suppress your ideas or your true sense of who you are? What lessons can we take from the rock band, the priest and the psychologist?
Follow Jeffrey Small on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jeffreysmalljr
Hon. Carolyn Bennett: Respecting our Aboriginal Peoples: They Were Here First
G. Elijah Dann: Facebook and Social Media: What Would Jesus Do?
Michael Leach: The Average Catholic Is Not Who You Think She Is
Fascintating subject. I look forward to reading a fleshed out table of comments in a few days.
I have an idea what R. W. Wetherill would say on the subject. Reasoning from the relative system locks thinking in that system. Absolute system thinking leads to self realization.
For millions of years, our survival as a species depended upon our ability to form tightly bonded social groups, that functioned as a cohesive whole. Those who were able to do so survived and thrived...those who weren't...didn't.
So this desire "to belong" is still strong in human beings...as is the fear of "standing out" (and the possibility of being expelled from the group/tribe/family) is just as strong.
Although individuals can evolve past this basic drive...it will take a LONG time for entire societies (and social structures) to evolve past this kind of tribalism. Religion especially, because religion has long played a powerful role in CEMENTING those group bonds...and providing a roadmap for how members of the group are supposed to interact with one another, and what the group considers of value in life.
Conformity is an expression of culture and, as such, saves us from having to learn or figure out everything anew.
Conformity is the foundation of cooperation. As social animals we gain a huge advantage by acting in concert, some tribal in nature, many that go beyond tribal boundaries, and some that involve almost all of humanity.
Third, conformity acts as social glue in so many ways both large (democracy) and small (a handshake). I suspect that religion is a mainstay of this function in that it binds people to a common purpose.
In fact, we need a little of both. Without conformity, we would be lost as a society. Without individuals who see, and push for, a more perfect we would also be lost. It is important to honor the heroism of individuals such as Ghandi and MLK. However, it is also important to honor the heroism of ordinary people living ordinary lives in dedication to the ordinary needs of society.
For the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.
- George Eliot
Most societies consisted of social groupings, where the concepts of 'conformity' and 'self' are/were without any real meaning. The 'self', if even contemplated, would be seen as a social construction and not the reality, the opposite to today's US thinking that the only reality is the individual.
Our interpretations of past historical figures are also couched in our modern-day individualist terms. Christians like to characterize Jesus as the uniquely, independent radical, fighting for justice within an oppressive Jewish society. Historically this makes little sense. To have any resonance, his messages, (and there were many such self-declared Jewish prophets), would have to have been meaningful within a kinship-based Middle-Eastern society of 2000 years ago. Individualist messages would have made no sense. Kinship deined everything.
We are conformists by nature. Truly radical behaviour is usually condemned (e.g. Wikileaks). At least the English have the wonderful term 'eccentric' as a softer word for the non-conformist. Ironically I see the US as one of the more conservative countries, despite the emphasis on individualism. Just think of reactions to US foreign policy criticisms post 911. Alex
From your article I learned why some of my friends and acquaintences regard me as a heretic.
I don't think it's a question of why can't we, but more why don't we? I personally think it all boils down to the old "free will" controversies. Can an individual man really be trusted to make the right choices without limits and boundaries. Thus by conforming one demonstrates they share the same respect for societal limits and boundaries as the rest of the group.
I always think about human behavior in the context of hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution. To ignore this seems preposterous and hopelessly anthropocentric.
Human proto-societies were basically composed of small highly-related clan/tribes. Large nation-states/countries are a very recent development in the time scale. Conformity and indoctinabilty were most certainly adaptive advantages, otherwise they would not exist today in literally billions of humans. Rational individual behavior is overwhelmed by tribalism every day whether its politics, religion, sports, etc. And political and religious leaders have been exploiting this trait from day 1.
I'd have to agree. But we should celebrate the happy little mistakes and the free thinkers because they in a sense lead to the next step in evolution. Whereas I think "groupthink" leads to devolution and stagnation in the interest of maintaining the status quo.
Exploitation can be either good or bad, and even sometimes both. During a disaster it is good to have a leader who can exploit the abilities of others in a group to help those in need. Though I conceed some leaders appear just to run off with the spoils.
Believinging in God is not enough. Seeking to do good is not enough if one does not question ones motives and actions.
I am an individual in a group, neither I or the group is flawless. Distribution of blame does not reduce individual responceablitiy. I act as a group because it amplifies the affect of what I am doing when we act in union. But, this does not mean that the result will be good.
Always question, as you move forward, excepting that you may have to step back. My knowledge is finite, I must trust in someone or something to fill in the gaps, but this does not me I give up my ability to question.
In the case of ABBA and some disco music, I was able to overcome the fear of uncoolness sooner and appreciate them earlier. A great piece of music is a joy forever. I can always get new friends.
Being a corporate cog--that's what is expected of you.
What's funny is most who read this article are precisely that: a corporate cog. And yet they'll not bother to look inside and see or recognize such, but instead will mouth inanities about nonconformism and "thinking outside the box."
Corporatism is, in fact, a disease, a cancer. And the vast majority of humanity suffers from it.
At all our peril.
Both of these scams are identical, with the same goals, and the same end result - the oppression of the working class for the benefit of the ownership class.