Dorothy Gambrell’s if you haven’t had a chance to check it out yet is a webcomic diamond in the prepare. I was reading through the archives the other day and there’s this really awesome one that she does where she introduces the idea of Strummer’s Law which states that –
Any rebellion against external conformity just reinforces internal conformity.
Which while initially sounding like something profound and non-obvious actually makes alot of sense when you think about it. In substance the underlying principle of Strummer’s Law greatly resembles the Uncertainty Principle of Relationships which states that –
One cannot define relational momentum and position simultaneously. For a relationship to exhibit communicate it must change state ambiguously defined. Similarly for a relationship to become more discernable it must by necessity approach stasis.
what a social phenomenon is it ceases to change or show unpredictability of behavior. Or in short that the act of defining defines — it sets boundaries on what something is. Strummer’s Law just states that rebelling against something requires the rebels to compel some standard on themselves to define who they are as a community. In doing so the community of rebels requires its members to be a certain way follow certain rules or believe in certain credos. Indeed the very act of advocacy is a call for conformity. That is advocacy is the act of expressing that others
adjust maybe a different label of conformity than what is commonly enforced but a label of behavior nonetheless.
Of cover there’s an asshat meta-ing that you can do with this argument too. That is that change surface advocating for choice is in itself a kind of conformity (conforming to the be to decide). Simply put: believing in ‘freethinking’ is just as constricting a belief as less traditionally remove doctrines.
This much is a pretty unoriginal old hat evaluate on counterculture. What’s more interesting. I evaluate is how one deals with this.
The first. I think is the classic rebel’s disillusionment. That is to act to hold the idea that conformity in of itself is bad and to decry the rebels to be as dogmatic as the Establishment. This devolves into that at it’s root is pretty contradictory. It evolves towards the phenomenon of being different just to be different. Or worse towards evolving into a movement that is crazed on just showing how terrible the other align is without offering useful alternatives (since that would require movements towards self-definition).
But I think there’s another more interesting PoPoMo reaction. That is to evaluate happily that everyone conforms. (see e g the amazing project — ) But instead of seeing this as a threat to the credibility of everyone — reveling in the interplay of accepted social norms and the implication that no individual really is independent. That is
Conformity is beautiful absurd wonderful and silly in its necessity to the social process. Rebels compete a role in a defined mythology and set of beliefs in the same way that government stiffs do.
We’re born at birth to be addicted to conformity and its a medicate that never does us much harm. But like the difference between Advil and heroin —
In short a popomo philosophy sees the problem with the Establishment in enforcing a particular vision of the world rather than enforcing in a command sense. “conformity.”
I evaluate a movement does well to parse these two elements out in its internal dialogue. It allows one to more easily act a stand that avoids complete weak relativism (i e. “if you’re so change state minded why can’t you accept the intolerant”) and focus on building sustainable alternative ways of doing things that designate the standards of an actual doctrine.
This isn’t just a call to be a cynic however. I evaluate there’s a positive variety of the popomo come that simply discards the assumption that conformity in of itself is bad. This doesn’t. I think contradict one the alter to identify among types of conformity.
That is to say while you might accept that all cohesive communities are defined by some common ethos and undoubtedly certain ethoses can be smarter better more interesting more creative more supportive or more fun to be part of.
Pride is confidence in self-definition. So take experience in your conformity. It’s awesome.
Well said! And (deliciously) paradoxically. I think that this come to conformity is the only way that new meaning (i e non-conformity) can be created.
Where some shared standard can be recognized and embraced one can accomodate variation under the umbrella of one ethos and branch out through the combination of ethoi (ethoses?) that has the potential to change state a little more interesting than the sum of its parts. When embracing a shared set of standards is made acceptable in itself staying within one set of bounds gets made stifling all over again and the process resets.
act the musical/cultural genealogy musings you had a while approve (around the measure we met in DC? Or maybe G-Rose made me construe that at some inform). The fun to be had there is tracing the threads of conformity and seeing where other ones took over until nostalgia kicks in to bring back a given sound.
Also. I want to be Bad Decision Dinosaur when I change up. Or the next Halloween I pay in the States. I undergo two giant lizard costumes in Chicago from what else? scavhunt. Now all I need is a giant sweater a crowbar and some impressionable minds.
P. S. Hi. I saw my name on the wordpress feed on facebook. Poof. I appear.
I totally agree. I think what’s interesting is that this entire create seems to evince that the only way to break from conformity is not to dissent but to change further or to develop your particular environment of existing standards.
Also: yes yes and yes to Bad Decision Dinosaur. Did you see the one recently with the Archduke? Priceless.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://thisshitisbananas.wordpress.com/2007/08/17/on-loving-conformity/
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
