glenn@c3pe.UUCP (D. Glenn Arthur Jr.) (03/27/88)
In article <2252@c3pe.UUCP>, gypsy@c3pe.UUCP (gypsy roach lee) writes: > but isn't it kind of conformist these days to refuse to do something just > because someone else does? ;-) if that's individualism, there is literally > *no* way to be an individual. ^^ Yes, you have precisely stated the problem with "individualism in reaction", as has at least one other person here. "Individualism" _in_reaction_to_ some convention or fashion is *not* individualism. But it *is* a very common mistake. Individualists sometimes feel a need to express themselves by *distancing* themselves from the "norm". Reaction is not individualism, *but* that does not mean that someone who does this is not an individualist. ... Unless they do it to fit in with a bunch of individualists. (I wish I could put a smiley here, but I've seen it too often.) Unfortunately, many people only get that far, and think that is individualism. More on the apparent contradiction in what I've said, below. At least I hope it's apparent. [Delightfull description of a contrary person delete. Read the original article if you haven't yet.] > that's *still* not individualism, just contrariness. he was still > letting society tell him what to do, only backwards, or sideways. Precisely. But there's more... > the most accurate definition of individualism is ridiculously simple... but i > still haven't seen it here and don't expect to. [...] > > gypsy @ ..!decuac.dec.com!c3pe > > "If you want to be you, be you, > And if you want to be me, be me" Ah! *NOW* we have seen the "most accurate definition" of individualism here. The Gypsy cunningly hid it in her signature! "Be Yourself!" Now for a commentary. Here's where I digress into my own strange philosophy, so if you're just looking for the latest installment of the above discussion, skip the rest. If you're curious, read on. First, let me admit right up front that I am new to indidualism, having only been an individualist for slightly less than a quarter century. (I have a good excuse, I think, having only been alive for slightly more than a quarter century.) So when I talk about the lessons I have learned in this life, more experienced folks can smile a knowing smile and think what they may. Second, I think I express myself better in dialog than in lecture, so I welcome e-mail discussions. Then, when my points have been distilled (and likely changed) by such discussions, I can post a better article. The essence of individualism is to be oneself, or perhaps to "define" onself, not in reference to other individuals, institutions, or societies. This is the root idea, and I think we have here a case opposite from Plato's cave -- the essence is the shadow and the mundane is real. In practice, individualism as I just described it is not such a wonderful thing. (Do I smell smoke?) Fortunately, most of us don't try to practice it as I just described it. Now that I've gotten the extreme definition out of the way, let me explain what I see people (including myself) doing, and why. Practicality? Well, I was going to get to that a little later. First a comment about culture. Some people want nothing or little to do with their cultural heritage. It's traditions and symbols don't concern them, being the trappings of a society that they don't want to define themselves in terms of. (Sorry about ending on a preposition...) "I am not just a WASP, I am an individual." "Why should I be like the rest of the people who look lime me?" Fine, but these people are throwing away precious traditions and history in the process. Of course, they should not feel obligated, as individuals, to be the ones to carry on those traditions. Other people place great value on their culture. The traditions, the holidays, the dress all are seen as part of their identity, not just something to be preserved, but as part of what defines them. They give up much of their *uniqueness* this way, but they gain anything good that comes from the past. And possibly anything bad. Can we still call such people individualists? How many of you individualists out there celebrate Christmas, or Yom Kippur (did I spell that right?), or Samhain, or Beltane, or any other holidays, according to convention or tradition? As I see it, the key is whether such a person feels they have a choice of how to act and *chooses* to follow custom, or feels that failing to follow custom makes them somehow less of whatever they call themselves. Or, looked at from a slightly different angle, whether the person feels that their culture belongs to them or they to it. Are they defined *within* their culture or is their culture just one facet of their self-image? Most individualists fall somewhere between the extremes. (You will hear me use this line again, I promise.) Different people reconcile the need to be their own person with their cultural heritage different ways. No problem, but it does mean that many individualists engage in *conventional* behaviour some (or much) of the time! {Gasp!} Next topic: synchronicity and inspiration. Indicidualism does not mean that you have to be unique. I happen to like the colour blue. Very much. Guess what most people's favourite colour is. :-) But I don't feel I have to pick another to be different. I have developed the ability to make parts of my body vibrate, which has earned me the nickname "The Human Vibrator" and comes in handy when giving a back rub. I have since met others who can do this, so I am not unique (I've also inspired a few other people to learn it, but right now I'm just talking about others who discovered it independantly), but vibration remains a significant element of my personal style, something that helps identify me. I see no need to change this even though it is not unique. I do it because it is part of my style, whether or not it is shared. Of course, I'd be a wee bit upset if somebody else started using the same nickname... :-) The vibration trick (which I can do with *any* part of my body, by the way) is something I came up with independantly, so it makes sense that I should hold on to it. But I also wiggle my eyebrows in funny ways to make people laugh. I didn't think of that on my own, but it seemed like a good idea and I took it. I didn't come up with the idea of putting cute slogans on buttons or t-shirts, but that doesn't stop me from buying shirts and buttons which express some idea or attitude that fits me. I heard about a group of people that dress up in medieval clothing and reenact historic battles. I wanted to join, and did, because it sounded like a whole lot of fun. I have also adopted many of their customs, much of their slang, and so on. (Actually, I'm involved in two such groups.) The thing is, I didn't join because I wanted to fit in or because I wanted to be like them -- I joined because it sounded like maybe they were like me in some respects and I would enjoy it. Adopting their culture was something I did because I thought it had merit (much of it, anyhow), not so I could "be one of them". (The "practicality" discussion I'll get to later is not the same as "trying to fit in".) I have chosen to take their culture and incorporate it into my personal culture. Note, by the way, that I also did not get into medievalism simply to be different from mainstream society. I have plenty of other ways to do that! In other words, I feel that inventing the same things as other people have invented, or taking good ideas where I find them, regardless of who thought of them, does not make me any less an individualist. It makes me an ecclectic, and *may* even make me more individual (or at least "more unique" (anybody whoe doesn't understand why I put quotes there, please send me email and I'll explain it)), as it becomes less likely that you will find another person who has created the same synthesis. Now, the expected practicality argument. Sometimes "the real world" intrudes. This one was a lesson I had too learn the hard way, and some of you (please don't stop reading just because I point out that it will generally be the younger among you) will not want to believe this. When I make concessions to practicality, act a little more conventional to make it easier to get along, have I sold out or am I facing reality? It can be either. When I put on a suit to go to a business meeting, there are several mindsets I can put on with it. I can be wearing a suit because "there is a time to be normal, and this is it." That's not individualism. That's not even copping out. The person who can feel that is not [yet?] comfortable with individualism. I can be wearing a suit because "there is a time to *act* normal...", which depends on the interpretation of "there is a time to". I can be wearing a suit because "in this situation it will be easier to deal with these people if I don't first have to overcome their impression that I'm a) disrespectful, or b) downright strange." The person who feels this is making a concession to reality. I feel that such a person is no less an individualist for having put aside his preferences in order to make dealing with others a little easier. I can be wearing a suit because "I'm going to make them think I'm one of them in order to manipulate them." This is *honest*, even if it sounds a little nasty. It is an individualistic attitude. I'm sure there are several more ways one can approach this example, but I just wanted to toss out a few to show how the same *act* can have different *meanings*. Where one draws the line in acquiescing to convention is a personal decision. On occasion, the fact that I wear my hair long and have a full beard has made my life a little more difficult than it would be were I clean shaven and short-haired. But I feel that my hairstyle is important enough to me to put up with the hassles that come from it. I may change my mind in the future. I may even come to like short hair (I'm told some people do), but I doubt it. Someone else may like long hair, or maybe fuschia hair, but not feel that it is worth the trouble of dealing with "normal" people's reactions to it. If one feels that such things are somehow "wrong" or "strange", then one is probably not an individualist. If one thinks such things are okay, or even nice, but not personally worth the hassle, one is likely an individualist being practical. Note that I am not encouraging people to "be practical". Y'all get enough of that from your mothers (at least I do). I'm merely saying that it's okay to be practical and still consider yourself an individualist. Of course, that raises the question "how far can you bend before you find you've 'sold out' and aren't being an individualist?" I don't know. I do think that acting completely normal all the time indicates that one isn't "really" an individualist (I feel it does take *some* amount of standing up for what you like), but I don't think we can draw a line and say that everybody on this side of the line is okay and everyone on that side has sold out. I think that if you want to know whether *you* have "sold out", you should think carefully about each thing you would like to do otherwise but don't for the sake of practicality. Ask yourself just how strongly you feel about it. As yourself whether maybe it really is important enought to put up with the reaction from the "normals". Ask yourself whether it's important enough that you feel you've cheapened yourself by giving in. In short, ask yourself whether changing for the sake of seeming normal is worth it. And be honest with yourself. Personally, keeping my hair long is immportant enough to me that I keep it. My attitude that I should be judged professionally by my technical merit and not by my clothing is something I can give a little on. (I wear a suit to meetings, and at least a tie when I work at a client's office, but in my office I wear something as casual as my employer feels comfortable with. Currently, I often work in bluejeans. At the Army Corps of Engineers, I wore dress pants and a nice shirt but usually no tie.) Similarly, I don't feel I have to pretend to be normal in conversations with co-workers or clients, but there are times I don't want to draw attention (such as the first time I meet a client) and topics I tend to stay away from. When I'm with my friends, I can talk about pretty much whatever I like. But if a topic comes up in conversation, I don't try to pretend to be someone I'm not. I just try to explain myself well enough that the people I'm talking to will see me as reasonable, not strange. Some of my attitudes are not ones that they're ready to accept as sane, no matter how well I present them. Well, those are the breaks for being who I am. I'll live with it. By the way, there are some things I am deliberately not mentioning right now, so I'll seem a little more like the rest of you. That's because I want you to be paying attention to my points, not how strange I am. Some other time we can talk about how strange I am. Since it's something I've discussed, I feel it's appropriate to mention that I'm doing this. Does that make this article any less valid? I've not pretended to believe anything different from what I really do believe, I've just been carefull with my examples. Does that make me conformist? I don't think so. The discussion about style and deciding whether it's worth it to deal with the reactions you'll get from being yourself is less than helpfull when it comes to moral issues. I don't think you can afford to be false to your beliefs. If you believe that it's wrong to kill animals for food, then by God don't eat meat, no matter how strange people will think you are. You don't have to preach at people. You don't have to *advertise* that you are different. But don't compromise your beliefs. If you hold a political belief that is somewhat unpopular and somebody asks your opinion around the coffee machine, you can decline to talk about it but don't claim to feel the opposite of what you feel. (Any advice from my elders out there? Am I being naive?) Being an individualist takes some guts. How much depends on who you are and who you have to face. But that's all the more reason to seek out other people who are like you or who accept you despite your being different. We all need other people we can talk to, we all need friends. What an individualist does differently is to seek out others like himself instead of trying to make himself like others. He doesn't need to prove himself by being deliberately different; he will be unique simply by being himself, whether the fact is obvious to anyone else or not. Myself, sometimes I think I'm a little too obvious, but I never feel I have to try. (Though sometimes I mention little things to get a reaction, I'll admit. But that's why I'll *mention* that I like pickles on pizza. It's not why I *like* it.) This is far too long already. If I've not been clear on some point, send me e-mail. If you disagree with me, I'll hear about it in a followup or by e-mail, I'm sure. Thank you for reading this far. D. Glenn Arthur Jr. -- D. Glenn Arthur Jr. "The Human Vibrator" ..!decuac!c3pe!glenn
tsf@THEORY.CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) (03/30/88)
In article <2254@c3pe.UUCP> glenn@c3pe.UUCP (D. Glenn Arthur Jr.) writes: >Other people place great value on their culture. What makes it "their" culture? To put it in more concrete terms, what happens if I decide to take up someone else's traditions, or I make up my own? How do I figure out what "my cultural heritage" is? It seems that you are reducing a very large space that a person can occupy (having any set of potential customs or habits) to a small one (using "their" culture/heritage or none at all). Do you gain anything by making that confinement? I agree with the remainder of your post for the most part, especially the part about sometimes making practical decisions to try to fit what other people expect, since this may help them focus upon what you want them to. Just be sure that when you do that, you are really fitting what they expect, rather than what you are guessing that they expect. Allow them to be individuals too. -- Tim Freeman Arpanet: tsf@theory.cs.cmu.edu Uucp: ...!seismo!theory.cs.cmu.edu!tsf
edk@gryphon.CTS.COM (Ed Kaulakis) (04/01/88)
In <1249@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>, tsf@THEORY.CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) writes: > In article <2254@c3pe.UUCP> glenn@c3pe.UUCP (D. Glenn Arthur Jr.) writes: > >Other people place great value on their culture. > > What makes it "their" culture? To put it in more concrete terms, what > happens if I decide to take up someone else's traditions, or I make up > my own? > You become excessively lonely, on the grounds that without a common language it's hard to communicate. Self-invention is, alas, a myth... > How do I figure out what "my cultural heritage" is? > If you are totally exceptional, take 99.99% of your beliefs, opinions, and capabilities. Otherwise use 100.00%. > It seems that you are reducing a very large space that a person can > occupy (having any set of potential customs or habits) to a small one > (using "their" culture/heritage or none at all). Do you gain anything > by making that confinement? > Well it depends on whether you have another 20 years to spend (fulltime) acquiring a second culture.