trz@drume.UUCP (ZehrbachT) (05/08/85)
Reading all this discussion about conforming and nonconforming has brought
back to mind my college days (I graduated in 82).
Back in those days I was bound and determined to be myself, to be an
individual, to go out of my way to not conform to social norms.
I'd rot in hell before I bought an Izod shirt, only conformists
wore that kind of shirt. I was stronger than that.
Then I took a class on Marketing (don't ask me why) and I learned in the
class that the latest TREND, the IN thing, was to be an INDIVIDUAL, to
NOT conform to any norms. Thus, the newest norm was to not bow to any norms.
Hmmmmm.
This came as quite a shock to me. Think of it, you're going along fine,
reveling in your own individuality, because it is the REAL you, and now
you find out that society has told you to be that way! So now I don't know
if I am being an individual for myself of if I am doing it for society. -:)
Tom Zehrbachrlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/10/85)
> Reading all this discussion about conforming and nonconforming has brought > back to mind my college days (I graduated in 82). > Back in those days I was bound and determined to be myself, to be an > individual, to go out of my way to not conform to social norms. > I'd rot in hell before I bought an Izod shirt, only conformists > wore that kind of shirt. I was stronger than that. > > Then I took a class on Marketing (don't ask me why) and I learned in the > class that the latest TREND, the IN thing, was to be an INDIVIDUAL, to > NOT conform to any norms. Thus, the newest norm was to not bow to any norms. > Hmmmmm. > > This came as quite a shock to me. Think of it, you're going along fine, > reveling in your own individuality, because it is the REAL you, and now > you find out that society has told you to be that way! So now I don't know > if I am being an individual for myself of if I am doing it for society. -:) > Tom Zehrbach 1. True individualism is an unexploitable phenonemon in marketing. It means that no one can predict or control the tastes of large masses of the public, thus no one can seek to sell a specific product with a large audience in mind. This is why marketing/advertising industries stress conformity in the public, make it seem attractive, trying to convince us through media manipulation that you just won't be popular unless you "fit in" with the crowd (a self-fulfilling prophecy: people may fear that people will shun them for not conforming, likewise people may feel justified in shunning those who don't conform). 2. It seems that what you described from your marketing class was in fact a marketing ploy. Tell individualists that it's now the in thing to be an individualist, and they'll think twice about being one (or get confused). Actually what you describe is hardly the case. True, many people want to be individualists, but the way marketing/ advertising people capitalize on this is to tell you what individualists do (according to them) so that you'll do it. ("You don't run with the crowd. You're an individualist. So buy *THIS*!! Like all the individualists do." -- Ever wonder why so many great individualists look alike?) Realize that just doing the opposite of what the "crowd"/the "masses" are supposed to do doesn't make you an individualist---it just puts you into another crowd! (One often formed from elitism and snobbishness.) A true individualist wouldn't choose to do things based on what one crowd did/didn't do. He/she would pick and choose what he/she liked. If a modern woman wants to shave her legs and wear high heels, or if a modern man wants to shave his face, who is any of us to claim that it's "politically incorrect" to do so? This notion of "political incorrectness" sounds like another manipulative marketing scheme to me. I digress... -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
zben@umd5.UUCP (05/11/85)
Sure, you're unique, I'm unique,
H*ll, we're ALL unique... :-)
If this seems inconsistent to anybody, investigate something called Russel's
Paradox. It speaks to meta-levels of set membership, and the explanation is
that at metalevel 1 we ARE all different, and at metalevel 2 we are all alike
by BEING different...
--
Ben Cranston ...{seismo!umcp-cs,ihnp4!rlgvax}!cvl!umd5!zben zben@umd2.ARPAhollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (05/11/85)
In article <716@drume.UUCP> trz@drume.UUCP (ZehrbachT) writes: >This came as quite a shock to me. Think of it, you're going along fine, >reveling in your own individuality, because it is the REAL you, and now >you find out that society has told you to be that way! So now I don't know >if I am being an individual for myself of if I am doing it for society. -:) I've considered myself to be a non-conformist since grammar school at least (i.e. before I even knew there was such a word). I also ran in to the above paradox and gave considerable thought to the theory and practice of non-conformism as a result. My conclusion was that it's nearly impossible to be unique. No matter what you do or are, it's likely that someone, somewhere is the same or very similar. Therefore, the essence of non-conformity must lie not in _what_ you do, but in _why_ you do it. If you _like_ to wear gray flannel everything then the fact that everyone around you is wearing it too doesn't make you a conformist. It's only when you do something you don't like or don't care about _for the sake of conforming_ that you become a conformist. -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (05/14/85)
> 1. True individualism is an unexploitable phenonemon in marketing. > ... A true individualist wouldn't choose > to do things based on what one crowd did/didn't do. He/she would pick > and choose what he/she liked. ``True individualism'' also does not exist. No one is individual enough to speak their own language, or write all their own books and other media, or live their lives without having to conform at least partially to other people's expectations. At least in some feminist circles this whole issue is regarded as an artifact of the extreme fragmentalism inherent in a patriarchal (i.e. male-centered) belief system, and even one of the means that patriarchy uses to maintain itself. The theory is that this belief system allows individuals to subjugate groups by preventing the binding of group- members into a strongly-interconnected entity. Thus the concept of individual action has becomes a element in the mythology that maintains male dominance. If this mythology is shed, the theory goes, female superiority at group interaction would eventually result in female leadership and dominance. Male hierarchies (and hierarchies themselves are considered mostly a patriarchal concept) require a great deal of energy just in terms of self-maintenence, and are inherently unstable. No, I'm not saying I believe this theory, at least not in any complete way. But like many radical ideas, it has some insights into the flaws of the status quo, even though it might be mistaken about causes or the result of changes. > If a modern woman wants to shave her > legs and wear high heels, or if a modern man wants to shave his face, > who is any of us to claim that it's "politically incorrect" to do so? > This notion of "political incorrectness" sounds like another > manipulative marketing scheme to me. I digress... As a matter of fact, it the very idea of dividing people up into groups, because of what they do or do not do, that the theory I stated above attacks. Only it sounds like you mean to allow division despite similarity, rather than permit cohesion despite differences. > "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day > to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human > being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Cummings hardly accomplished this; he never forsook the New England Transcendentalism of his background, though he certainly stretched its boundries quite a bit. There is a big difference between individualism and free creative expression; I think perhaps Cummings, at least in this quote, mistakes one for the other. > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
crs@lanl.ARPA (05/16/85)
> > 1. True individualism is an unexploitable phenonemon in marketing. > > > ... A true individualist wouldn't choose > > to do things based on what one crowd did/didn't do. He/she would pick > > and choose what he/she liked. > > ``True individualism'' also does not exist. No one is individual enough > to speak their own language, or write all their own books and other > media, or live their lives without having to conform at least partially > to other people's expectations. > > At least in some feminist circles this whole issue is regarded as an > artifact of the extreme fragmentalism inherent in a patriarchal (i.e. > male-centered) belief system, and even one of the means that patriarchy > uses to maintain itself. The theory is that this belief system allows > individuals to subjugate groups by preventing the binding of group- > members into a strongly-interconnected entity. Thus the concept of > individual action has becomes a element in the mythology that > maintains male dominance. If this mythology is shed, the theory goes, > female superiority at group interaction would eventually result in > female leadership and dominance. Male hierarchies (and hierarchies > themselves are considered mostly a patriarchal concept) require a great > deal of energy just in terms of self-maintenence, and are inherently > unstable. > > No, I'm not saying I believe this theory, at least not in any complete > way. But like many radical ideas, it has some insights into the flaws > of the status quo, even though it might be mistaken about causes or the > result of changes. > > > If a modern woman wants to shave her > > legs and wear high heels, or if a modern man wants to shave his face, > > who is any of us to claim that it's "politically incorrect" to do so? > > This notion of "political incorrectness" sounds like another > > manipulative marketing scheme to me. I digress... > > As a matter of fact, it the very idea of dividing people up into groups, > because of what they do or do not do, that the theory I stated above > attacks. Only it sounds like you mean to allow division despite > similarity, rather than permit cohesion despite differences. > > > > "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day > > to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human > > being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings > > Cummings hardly accomplished this; he never forsook the New England > Transcendentalism of his background, though he certainly stretched > its boundries quite a bit. There is a big difference between > individualism and free creative expression; I think perhaps Cummings, > at least in this quote, mistakes one for the other. > > > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr > > -Ed Hall > decvax!randvax!edhall I think we would all be a damned sight better off if we worried less about individual*ism* and put more effort into being *individuals*. Charlie ------- Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (05/21/85)
> > 1. True individualism is an unexploitable phenonemon in marketing. > > > ... A true individualist wouldn't choose > > to do things based on what one crowd did/didn't do. He/she would pick > > and choose what he/she liked. > > ``True individualism'' also does not exist. No one is individual enough > to speak their own language, or write all their own books and other > media, or live their lives without having to conform at least partially > to other people's expectations. > > At least in some feminist circles this whole issue is regarded as an > artifact of the extreme fragmentalism inherent in a patriarchal (i.e. > male-centered) belief system, and even one of the means that patriarchy > uses to maintain itself. The theory is that this belief system allows > individuals to subjugate groups by preventing the binding of group- > members into a strongly-interconnected entity. It seems more likely to me that the dominant group (not set of independently acting individuals) imposes its beliefs on the less powerful groups. This can be true even to the extent of denying that the less powerful groups exist or have legitimate concerns. I don't think it is individuals that are subjugating groups; it is the most powerful group that subjugates the less powerful. There are people who insist that they are totally individual in nature, with no obligations or ties to any group. Then there are those who say that individuality is a lie, and that every person is entirely a product of cultural influences. Sometimes I wish people could be a little more moderate. Every person is at once an individual and a member of many groups, for example: gender group nation state city or town family race (even if you don't believe in race, society does). political party religious denomination etc. Part of being a human being is learning to balance your own individuality against your membership in all of the groups you belong to. Every person does this in different degrees with his or her various groups; this in itself is a part of a person's individuality. > > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr > > -Ed Hall -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff