Introduction

Conformity or individuality, the societal or the individual, to stand in or to stand out, these are the decisions we make and who we are. In our lives it is a constant battle between figuring out who we are as individuals and wanting to be accepted by others. Our individual history is written on these two concepts. The individual stands up and stands out. He is the one who begins a revolution and starts a social movement. He is not afraid of the consequences but accepts that his individuality is worth more than succumbing to the norms others so easily have accepted. And as heroic and inspiring as this individual may appear to the onlooker, even though we too dream of being that brave and audacious, we are more than comfortable joining the crowd and, if I dare be too cliche, fading into the sea of faces. While we as people want to claim our individuality as something so different from others and hold onto it, we are more willing to push that aside to conform to societal norms in order to be accepted by others. We are in a tug-of-war game between being a leader and being a follower, between being the individual and being the conformist. Conformity versus individuality is important to study in order to better understand people and the incentive behind his or her actions and thoughts. It is also important to keep in mind that without the intertwined relationship between the opposition of individuality and conformity the world would cease to spin as it does. Therefore, we should not judge one as being "good" or "right" and the other as "bad" or "wrong", rather we should see them both as important to our culture.

For the remainder of this study, I will post articles of research done on the topic of conformity and individuality, along with discuss how this relates to our culture and the works of other social and cultural theorists. Other posts will include youtube videos and movie clips of three films, which will be mentioned and discussed thoroughly of how they portray individuality and conformity. These films being Juno, Runaway Bride, and Pride and Prejudice. Before continuing, it is helpful to keep in mind that in these films, and many other films, we as the viewers, praise and adore the individuality and boldness of the characters we see on the screen, yet in our own lives have hard time seeing ourselves as that ambitious individual. We praise characteristics and personality traits that we are often afraid of having for ourselves. We view individuality as being set a part and significantly different than others and as a result of that, we see conformity as being something to avoid completely. There is a balance, however, between individuality and conformity and we should strive for that balance, rather than striving for one extreme, or settling for the other.

I Have a Dream

I believe that Martin Luther King Jr. understood the balance between conformity and individuality. The statements he made were not to prove to the world that he was different, but to share with the world that we should be different. He was unafraid of what would come next in his life due to his bold character and leadership. He had strong beliefs and he let that be the driving force in his actions for change in society. Equality amongst whites and blacks is what he dreamt of and he was not willing to conform to a world of inequalities. He was beaten, thrown in jail, and even assassinated for fighting for equality. Sometimes society gives us boundaries that we have conform to, such as laws set before us to follow, but some societal norms do not need to be conformed to. King's individuality was seen through his passion for a new world and his critical thinking of society along with his courage to dream. It is critical thinking within the domain of conformity that brings out our individuality. Critical thinking is important to use in our constantly changing culture because it questions the norms and does not allow us to simply settle or conform to what is without first knowing why we should conform and whether or not there is another option. King raised non-violent fists to fight against inequality in hopes of seeing an equal nation, where race did not stand in the way of people coming together. Martin Luther King Jr. was an individual and a great leader to this nation and to the world.

For a bit more information about Martin Luther King Jr. check out http://http//nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1964/king-bio.html

Critical Thinking

According to Wikipedia:

Critical thinking "involves determining the meaning and significance of what is observed or expressed, or, concerning a given inference or argument, determining whether there is adequate justification to accept the conclusion as true."

It"gives due consideration to the evidence, the context of judgment, the relevant criteria for making the judgment well, the applicable methods or techniques for forming the judgment, and the applicable theoretical constructs for understanding the problem and the question at hand."

"Critical thinking employs not only logic but broad intellectual criteria such as clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance and fairness. In contemporary usage ‘critical’ has the connotation of expressing disapproval, which is not always true of critical thinking. A critical evaluation of an argument, for example, might conclude that it is valid."

"Thinking is often casual and informal, whereas critical thinking deliberately evaluates the quality of thinking."

_______________________________________________________


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

"The Metropolis"

What is difficult about studying conformity and individuality within our society and culture is that it creates a circular feeling of thoughts and unanswered questions. A question that comes to my mind quite often is what is individuality? It is a question that could be discussed for hours, yet remains unanswered. in the essay, Ambiguous Individuality, Olli Pyyhtinen writes about the social theorist, Georg Simmel and his ideas on the "who" and the "what" of an individual. Simmel looked at the individual within the context of the metropolis life. In his essay, The Metropolis and Mental Life, he begins by saying, "the deepest problems of modern life flow from the attempt of the individual to maintain independence and individuality of his existence against the sovereign powers of society, against the weight of the historical heritage and the external culture and technique of life" (Spillman 20o2). Simmel paints a picture for us of the Metropolis life and the individuals who occupy such a life. There is a loss of individuality within a life like that where the relationships between people is that of seller and buyer and the interactions between the two consist of some sort of transaction. He refers to this as an "intellectual relationship" which deals with people in the same way as numbers, as opposed to an "emotional relationship" which relies on the individuality of the peoples (Spillman 2002). The "intellectual relationship" is part of the "economic-psychological aspect" of the metropolis. They are not personal, but business oriented. No deep connection between the buyer and the seller or producer exists, other than the money that sits between them, connecting them in this transaction. Simmel mentions that "the modern city, however, is supplied almost exclusively by production for the market, that is, for ENTIRELY UNKNOWN PURCHASEERS who never appear in the actual field of vision of the producers themselves" (Spillman 2002).



I work as a cashier at a retial sporting goods store and at the end of a long day at work customer looks the same and is the same to me. I ring up the items they set before me, tell them how much they owe me, take their money, and say have a nice day as politely as I can. At the beginning of the day or a year and a half ago when I started working there, I had excitement and genuine greetings for those who walked through the door. But the repetition of that stimuli (customers walking through the door and buying products) and the constant occurrences of the same thing, decrease my reaction to it. This is, in my opinion, similar to what Simmel writes when he mentions the "blase outlook" within the metropolis. He explains that "the essence of the blase attitude is an indifference towards the distinction between things. Not in the sense that they are not perceived, as is the case of mental dullness, but rather that the meaning and the value of the distinctions between things, and therewith of the things themselves are experienced as meaningless. They appear to the blase person in a homogeneous, flat and gray color with no one of them worthy of being preferred to another. This psychic mood is the correct subjective reflection of a complete money economy to the extent that money takes the place of all the manifoldness of things and expresses all qualitative distinctions between them in the distinction of 'how much'" (Spillman 2002).



But then, amongst the 8 hours of faceless figures passing by me, a face appears. it is within the rare occasion, when a customer comes in and engages in conversation with me, that his or her face is remembered. They are no longer figures but people with stories, lives, and interests. They become individuals. My relationship between them is still within the context of a transaction, however, once meaning and emotion are brought into the picture, the relationship changes ever so slightly, and the dehumanizing effect of the "blase attitude" diminishes.



Now for the "who" and the "what of an individual...



___________________________________________________________


Spillman, Lyn. Cultural Sociology: Simmel, Georg. The Metropolis and Mental Life. Blackwell Publishing (2002) p. 28-38.

Think different

http://http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX9GTUMh490&feature=related

This video is inspiring to watch so that we can see what the individuals in our history have done and how they have touched lives and changed our lives. I just thought it was neat to think about how we might call them crazy, insane, or totally awesome, but no matter what we look up to them so much for their individuality and bravery to do what they had believed in.

Just a beautiful video overall.

The Who and the What

Ambiguous Individuality: Georg Simmel on the "Who" and the "What" of the Individual, is an essay written by Olli Pyyhtinen pertaining to Georg Simmel's perspective on the "Who" and the "What" of an individual. She writes that "individuality is always divided between the who and the what: on the one hand, each individual is an absolute singularity, someone incomparable and irreplaceable, and yet, on the other hand, composed of some-thing that one is, of qualities possessed by many people, the combination of which nevertheless succeeds in making one unique" (2008). This duality is common in Simmel's writings, which I find ot be fascinating because our lives seem to function best with some sort of struggle, or tug-of-war, btween two oppositions. So for Simmel to see a duality whithing us seems to make sense in a way.

I have mentioned that conformity and individuality can and should co-exist within our lives for the world to function as it does. Emile Durkheim would disagree with me and say that the individual cannot also be the conformist. Pyyhtinen mentions Durkheim and what he wrote in "The Division of Labor", that "we cannot at one and the same time adhere to both of the tendencies: if we desire to be individual, we cannot think and act as others do, and, if we express solidarity with others, our individuality decreases accordingly" (2008). Simmel's perspective of the duality of people contrasts with Durkheim's perspective. While Durkheim says that this duality cannot exist, Simmel gives us a clear example of how it does exist. Pyyhtinen writes that "Simmel argues that even though as categories the individual and society are already in principle irreconcilable, fashion is nonetheless able to reconcile their antagonism in a provisory manner: 'It is peculiarly characteristic of fashion that it rendors possible a social obedience, which at the same time is a form of individual differentiation'" (2008).

We have boundaries set before us, some of which by law we cannot break or go beyond. Even with these limitations and boundaries that we should or must conform to, Simmel is saying we do not need to lose our individuality. Both can and do exist simultaneously, no offense to Durkheim.

Continuing along this theme of dualities, Pyyhtinen writes about Simmel's concept "between the who and the what of the individual: on the one hand, the individual is an absolute singularity, someone unique and non-repeatable, on the other, one is composed of something, of more or less typical traits shared with others" (2008). It is the difference of "qualitative individuality", which "refers to the freedom and self-responsibility that a person gains in wider social circles as opposed to more limiting groups"; and "qualitative individuality", which "pertains to the fact that a person differs from others in the form or content of one's being and action" (Pyyhtinen 2008). Simmel makes this distinction for us to better understand individuality and the individual; thus now if one were to say that individuality is diminishing in our society, we could argue that it may just be the individual within the domain of qualitative individuality that seems to be diminishing, rather than the quantitative individual.

What I appreciated about this essay was that it forced me to take time to really think about individuality and that there are different parts to individuality, or rather individuality is a dualistic concept. I remember when I was in high school trying so hard not to be such a "conformist" but an individual, that I did not even know who I was. I wanted to be different, to have something that set me apart from the rest of the crowd. But by searching so hard for it, it seems I fell further away from my individuality... I have learned since then that is is okay to enjoy reading the Twilight books, or taking long walks on the beach. Being part of the majority is not always a bad thing if you know that it is something that you enjoy and like. Having similarities and common interests with others is what brings us together as family, friends, and people; then it is our unique characteristics that begin to shine through and add some spice to those similarities within those groups. Conformity and individuality co-exist and can do so in a healthy manner if we do not lose sight of who we are. Again, I believe that within critical thinking and active minds is where a lot of our uniqueness will shine through.
____________________________________________________________

Pyyhtinen, Olli. Ambiguous Individuality: Georg Simmel on the "Who" and the "What" of the Individual. Hum Stud (2008) 31:279-298.

The Girl Who Silenced the World

I just thought this was so cool! She's so young, well she was so young when she spoke in front of all those people. She is speaking up and confronting adults about what they need to do to make changes for her future and the future of other kids just like her. I was inspired.