To conform or not to conform?

Conform

1 of 1

by Mark Waybill

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Conformity is a generalized statement which defines a rather vague notion that we are all whether we like it or not essentially the same as one another in most respects and that by the process of not conforming we are 'being ourselves' and being 'free'. This is very idealist thinking and influenced by hippie and beatnik ideals based upon Orwellian and suchlike superstitions and fears of totalitarian government, dictatorships, and 'the man'.

Being a more rational individual than these rebels I know that conformity is essential if you want to be normal, and being normal is one of the best investments you can make to guarantee your social standing will be maintained or improved. To not conform is to to take a risk, to be daring, to be 'free', but also trapped. Trapped in the life of a outcast, a runaway, one who is always thought of as an outsider. To conform is to be only as bad as everyone else, to be no worse, if no better. To be normal is to be safe.

Safety in numbers remains an important social phenomenon in society. It is more likely you will be attacked, out of work, socially alienated, etc if you are different rather than normal. And before you argue that it is uncool to be square and that squares have no friends, I never said squares were normal. Hippies, beatniks and communists are more socially accepted and normal than squares. Its very conformist to be a rebel these days.

Rebels such as emos, goths, punks etc are not true rebels unless they commit proper illegalities, and as such are merely different. Anti-conformists are those who oppose normalcy, try to live differently, become popular for doing so, influence others to do so, and become leaders of successful mass social trends. Conformists on the other hand do what is done, whatever that may be, but are not overly mundane robotic types and do have their own personalities.

Anti-conformism has become very popular and it is seen as weird and not normal to be normal these days. If you are weird, an anti-conformist type, you will be more socially accepted by normal people, and will more likely be considered average and everyday and mundane and square. Yes I went there. For indeed it is quite ordinary to be 'different' these days, and the notion of squares and cool cats has becomes somewhat ironic, seeing as squares are no longer normal.

Daria Morgendorffer on the other hand, while antisocial, is not weird. She is a regular type with a perfectly functional brain and is perfectly aware of her situation. As such she is a perfectly healthy individual, despite not being terribly popular. But popular people are not popular, and if anything are the sort of attention seeking types who are considered unpopular by most.

This might all sound quite contradictory, but essentially at all comes to the notion of their being a conformity in the first place, from which one may not conform to be different and 'to be oneself'. This conformity never existed properly, as normality itself never existed. Whatever the majority of people are doing is normal, and if conformity is to be considered existent, let us apply the term to being normal. Thus seeing as those who classify themselves as rebels or different from the ordinary are ordinary and normal, rebels are thus rebels within an already rebel state.

Thus the only true anti-conformists are anarchists, criminals, the insane, and people considered to be weird (not to be confused with different or strange). To be weird is far worse than to just be different or strange. It involves being actively resented by the majority, and to be considered a villain by them even if one is not and never was a villain.

Thus the best route to take is to do what everybody else is doing. You will find that it is easy to be yourself that way.

Learn more about this author, Mark Waybill.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.