Conforming to Non-Conformist Culture

**Vladimir Lenin** · March 06, 2008, 10:02 PM

I would like to start this thread with two simple questions:

Is conforming to alternative or non-confroming cultures, really just conforming?

If so then can we ever be free of conformity?

Also a quote from Ayn Rand to go with,

"There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist."

**hellas1** · March 06, 2008, 10:34 PM

Hello,

I. Yes, IF you mean a "lazy, go with the flow conformity."
You didn't qualify that "conformity."

2. Yes, IF a person is willing to swallow the fact (in full cognizance) that one IS a conformist, "ON" or "OFF" purpose.

Krishnamurti spoke of viewing things with "Choiceless Awareness."
In Dzogchen, a High level of Buddhist meditation (No-Ratiocination type) this "Choiceless Awareness" is called "Naked Awareness."

Both Krishnamurti and Dzogchen state that to "see" or perceive something, thinking must stop and an awareness NOT born of like/dislike, hate/love, fear/respect, (which is called duality) but an awareness which just involves a passive observation of one's "self", surroundings, and others manifests without forcing it to manifest.

If we could NOT be free, Who freely posits the question?
hellas1

**CtrlAltDe1337** · March 07, 2008, 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by John Galt

I would like to start this thread with two simple questions:

Is conforming to alternative or non-confroming cultures, really just conforming?

If so then can we ever be free of conformity?

Also a quote from Ayn Rand to go with,

"There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist."

Conforming to non-conformism, hmmm...:hmmm: I guess it is conforming.

**MasterOfNone** · March 07, 2008, 03:52 AM

Of course conformity always needs to be defined as we must all conform to something.

I would answer agree with the quotation from Rand. It seems to me there are three types of conformity:

1. Those who go along with the crowd or with a tradition for the sake of popularity/acceptance or a sense of tradition - the tenets they espouse may or may not be right, and often will be a mix of course.

2. Those who go along with the fashionable non-conformity - for the sake of opposing #1 or for the reasons of acceptance/popularity within a subculture.

3. Those who want to conform to what is good and true - those who exercise an independent mind and actually think about what they believe and their reasons for doing so

#3s are, alas, the rarest group.

**Vladimir Lenin** · March 07, 2008, 05:49 PM

MoN: You have a good point, in fact I was talking to a friend of mine who happens to be a democrat. He's bought signs and clothing from both Hillary and Obama. I was asking him why and he said, "I don't care who wins so long as they are a liberal."

I asked him then, "What is a Liberal?"

He responded with, "A really hardcore democrat."

He did'nt agree with Liberalism ideologically, just as someone roots for a football team, or a hockey team or any kind of team. And that's why we need to stop these people from voting and get the number 3's to vote.

**Bokks** · March 10, 2008, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by John Galt

He did'nt agree with Liberalism ideologically, just as someone roots for a football team, or a hockey team or any kind of team. And that's why we need to stop these people from voting and get the number 3's to vote.

Number 3's will always vote, they need no reason to be enticed, if they're a true Number 3 they will simply because it has to be done. Likewise removing the right from the others to vote is a very un"Number 3" thing to do.

And to kind of springboard from MasterOfNone's list, all conformation occurs around those who are in the third catagory. They are more or less the leaders, and there are those who truly join an "anti"group because they think it is the right thing to do, all others in Number 2 do so simply because of that original guidance. Without Number 3 numbers 1 and 2 do not exist, and through numbers 1 and 2 number 3 actually gains power.

Anyway, if there is an existing culture or subculture, joining it is conformity... actually because of the previous paragraph. there is a possibility to be free of conformity, however, and that is to be your own person. Your friend who said that Liberals are hardcore democrats was possibly the most conformist of all, since he (or she) based a definition of a political spectrum to a political party. A true liberal could be a republican just as much as a democrat, the only difference is what they are liberal in. True librality, as I see it, is freedom for all to rise and fall, mostly to rise, and to make themselves who they are, with occasional guidance or protection. That just so happens to be the main argument for true conservativism as well.
Really though, to be truly unconformist is to be in a truly multi-faceted society where every belief and perception has its place and is accepted, and to be in such a group is a conformity of a different nature; the conformity of acceptance itself. So maybe unconformity isn't possible... and maybe that's not such a bad thing.

**Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus** · March 10, 2008, 07:29 PM

There is no such thing as 'conforming to non-conformity.' If your wearing Hawthorne heights shirts because all your friends do, your a conformist, your just conforming to something else.

**Trey** · March 11, 2008, 03:00 AM

Originally Posted by Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus

There is no such thing as 'conforming to non-conformity.' If your wearing Hawthorne heights shirts because all your friends do, your a conformist, your just conforming to something else.

No, if you're wearing a Hawthorne Heights shirt you're just a ****.

**~~removeduser_426582376423734~~** · March 07, 2008, 06:18 PM

John, its just the way you look at things. It is pessimistic to think a non-conformist doesn't conform to look fashionable. Maybe on some level that's true, but there's no real reason to infer it from nothing. More likely is that a non-conformist does it for reasons that merely conform with the minority.

**Vladimir Lenin** · March 07, 2008, 06:33 PM

But in the end is'nt he just conforming to the non-conformist or counter-culture?

**~~removeduser_426582376423734~~** · March 09, 2008, 11:01 AM

You mean how a minority is actually a majority in his own minority? Sure, why not, confuse it if you want.

**Squier** · March 11, 2008, 03:13 AM

in many ways yes it is conforming but then it doesn't hurt anyone so who cares.

we are all unique, as they say.

**Captain Arrrgh!** · March 11, 2008, 03:17 AM

Brian: "You're all individuals!!!"

Person in Crowd: "...I'm not."

But seriously.
The hardest thing for the bewildered herd to accept is that EVERY slant of modern culture has been preconcieved and pattened for us. Obviously the stupider 'sub' cultures such as goth, or banger, or hippie or homeboy, but even such things as the weathermen, the black panthers...
To claim to be nearly anything in our era is to be a marionette.

**Bokks** · March 11, 2008, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by Rambarrrgh!

but even such things as the weathermen, the

Weathermen? Who are the weathermen?

Who said it? "There exists nothing new under the sun."
Elementary my dear Watson...

**Captain Arrrgh!** · March 11, 2008, 07:55 AM

It's a tad more sophisticated than that, V. A level of social steering so encompassing that hippies are shouting 'we're hippies!' without even comprehending that the whole 'id' of 'hippy' was baked like a cake.
The most ingenious control; using that of our own hauteur as our horses blinders.
Please no one focus on the simple hippy analogy, it could be anything within the social architecture.

**Bokks** · March 11, 2008, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by Captain Arrrgh!

It's a tad more sophisticated than that, V. A level of social steering so encompassing that hippies are shouting 'we're hippies!' without even comprehending that the whole 'id' of 'hippy' was baked like a cake.

Very true. i'd say that in a few cases one could truly re-engineer an ideology to better fit a non-conformist point of view, but it is inarguable that the majority of those who join such subgroups do so simply to redesign their own self perception, or rather that which others percieve them by.
I had a friend... she did the whole "hippy-vegan thing"... dredlocks and all. Now she claims she's lesbian, even yelling at a gay friend of ours that he needs to respect "her people" more.
Of course that's the saddest group... a subgroup of group-2 if you use the list MasterOfNone gave us earlier... that have no idea what the heck they want.

Originally Posted by Captain Arrrgh!

The most ingenious control; using that of our own hauteur as our horses blinders.
Please no one focus on the simple hippy analogy, it could be anything within the social architecture.

And a good one at that... most of the time.

Being Rambo sucketh most royally.

On a side note, I was wondering the sudden face-lift.
You did pull off the Rambo pretty well for a while... but I always knew under that hard exterior you were just a wittle kitten!

Awesome Avatar, by the way... it bests even your original.

**johnny5000** · March 11, 2008, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by John Galt

I would like to start this thread with two simple questions:

Is conforming to alternative or non-confroming cultures, really just conforming?

If so then can we ever be free of conformity?

Also a quote from Ayn Rand to go with,

"There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist."

All cultures are conformist- that's the nature of culture, and we're all raised in our culture, so it's fully entrenched in us, and there's no way around it.
All subcultures that we think of as "non-conformist" are just encompassed in the larger culture as a whole- they can't really be separated. The examples given (goth, hippie or whatever) are just as much part of the larger culture as the people who you'd think of as part of "conformist" culture.

Also, I wouldn't put too much stock in anything Ayn Rand said.