# Conformity **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 31, 2000, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conformity/21019 "2000-05-31T17:49:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Bored2001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47774/32.png) [@Bored2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bored2001)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2000, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conformity/21019/1 "2000-05-31T17:49:48Z")
This is a topic i’m stealing from a forum which I vist who has an age group closer to mine, but I’d like to see your thoughts on this. Conformity. As we all know the world is based on this concept. People conform to societies. If they don’t they are persecuted. Yet it is my belief that without anti-conformists society will never change. They will stand up and challenge the status quo in order to represent their “unreasonable” ideas to the “reasonable” masses. Because of this I believe that it is the unreasonable man who intiates change in world. (hey… who’s signiture did I steal this quote from? 🙂 ) ~Bored2001 ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2000, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conformity/21019/2 "2000-05-31T18:15:42Z")
This is not really a new idea. Read Robert Persig’s Lila. He pretty much states the same thing, and claims that it happens on 4 evolutionary levels - inorganic, biological, social, and intellectual. He defines it as static quality and dynamic quality. Dynamic breaks the rules, and static provides the rules to be broken. If they get out of balance we end up with either stagnation or chaos. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2000, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conformity/21019/3 "2000-05-31T18:18:53Z")
This is not really a new idea. Read Robert Persig’s Lila. He pretty much states the same thing, and claims that it happens on 4 evolutionary levels - inorganic, biological, social, and intellectual. He defines it as static quality and dynamic quality. Dynamic breaks the rules, and static provides the rules to be broken. If they get out of balance we end up with either stagnation or chaos. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Angel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d26b3c/32.png) [@Johnny\_Angel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Angel)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2000, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conformity/21019/4 "2000-05-31T19:28:28Z")
A lot of people will tell you that the problem with _non-conformity_ is that it’s effectively impossible not to conform. It is, in fact, unnatural. Emerson would have disagreed, but it turns out that he was wrong. It’s the holders of this view who trot out the cliche, “Confomring to non-conformity.” While I don’t say these people are wrong, I do think they miss the real problem with _non-confority_ – namely that Emerson, in his essay _Self-Reliance_ is assuming that he’s not speaking to the squares. He does not anticipate the adoption of his rhetoric by mediocre persons, and certainly not to the extent that his words will turn into a Reebok commercial. He could not possibly have known that the language of _non-conformity_ would become commercial pop-culture or that his own words would become pre-chewed pablum for the masses who are kept in line because they believe they are already out of line. Emerson thought only extraordinary minds would take up the banner. In fact, these days practically everyone reguards themselves as hipper than thou. But to be a hipster, one must have squares. And if the establishment isn’t square enough to suit how hip you want to be, you make up a Straw Man Establishment and wail against it. Even Big Brother is shouting, “Down with Big Brother!” _Non-conformity_ as Emerson understood it is in crisis, because no one is willing to play the straight man. ---
**Author:** ![Initial\_Entry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e9a140/32.png) [@Initial\_Entry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Initial_Entry)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2000, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conformity/21019/5 "2000-05-31T20:22:35Z")
I agree with what everyone preceding me has already said. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Bored2001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47774/32.png) [@Bored2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bored2001)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2000, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conformity/21019/6 "2000-05-31T20:43:14Z")
~Johnny Angel Conformity is the adherence to the status quo. The status quo is relative to what the masses believe, want, etc etc. We are now in a society where the status quo is to be a “Non-conformist” but in that view everyone is conforming. Thus the conformists are now the previous non-conformists and today’s non-conformists are those who do not conform to the non-conformity. Make sense? Basically it is the status quo that changes and our definition of what conformists and non-conformists change with it. So in this respect it is once again the non-conformist which will initate change because his/her ideas are different from the status quo. Emerson’s ideas aren’t flawed =) see? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Punyon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/eada6e/32.png) [@Punyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punyon)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2000, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conformity/21019/7 "2000-05-31T22:54:01Z")
And now, it’s time for everyone’s **FAVORITE** game, DISCREDIT THE WACKO! To play, you simply make a misguided statement, as the poor victim below has, and once I find it, I go through it and point out EXACTLY how and why he is wrong! Here we go! > [@](#): > > \*\* > A lot of people will tell you that the problem with _non-conformity_ is that it’s effectively impossible not to conform. It is, in fact, unnatural. > > _This is a matter of personal opinion. I am a rabid non-conformist, and I succeed quite well at it. In my non-conformity, I refuse to wear Tommy Hilfiger and Ambicrombie & Fitch not only because they are “conformist” brands, but also because I disagree with having to pay twice as much for a T-Shirt simply because the words ‘Ambicrombie & Fitch’ are written on it. My personal favorite store is Hot Topic, simply because they carry non-conformist clothing. HOWEVER, This does not mean I act or dress like a goth/punk/rebel-without-a-clue! I ENJOY wearing all black, and do so frequently, but I don’t let it limit what else I wear or influence how I act. Non-conformity isn’t “unnatural” because it’s not an instinct, it’s a personal choice that people make. I don’t dislike conformists just because they conform. That’s their choice. However, I also don’t let my non-conformity make me see them as some kind of ‘enemy’. I have friends who are both conformists and non-conformists. That is what a non-conformist is, someone who doesn’t let social stereotypes get in the way of their life. The closest things to a group of conforming non-conformists are ravers. They dress uniquely, enjoy many DIVERSE forms of music, and like having fun. A rave is basically a group of non-conformists getting together and having fun. Non-conformists don’t conform because they choose not to. There is nothing unnatural about that._ > > Emerson would have disagreed, but it turns out that he was wrong. It’s the holders of this view who trot out the cliche, “Confomring to non-conformity.” > > _Emerson was not “wrong”, because as I said before, non-conformity is a matter of personal opinion, and therefore there is no right or wrong involved. Also, I have NEVER heard that “cliche” used._ > > While I don’t say these people are wrong, I do think they miss the real problem with _non-confority_ – namely that Emerson, in his essay _Self-Reliance_ is assuming that he’s not speaking to the squares. He does not anticipate the adoption of his rhetoric by mediocre persons, and certainly not to the extent that his words will turn into a Reebok commercial. > > _Although you have a point about that Reebok commercial, I believe you’re wrong in assuming that Emerson was only talking to a select group of people. He was talking to everyone, INCLUDING the “squares” and the “mediocre persons”. Self-Reliance is a call-to-arms for unenlightened non-conformists._ > > He could not possibly have known that the language of _non-conformity_ would become commercial pop-culture or that his own words would become pre-chewed pablum for the masses who are kept in line because they believe they are already out of line. > > _I don’t see how you can call non-conformity ‘pop-culture’ (although I believe I already agreed with you about that stupid commercial), since non-conformity is not a single “style” of dress or acting, but is the art of being different than the mainstream majority of the people in actions, appearance, and world views. Also, you’ve seen too many conspericy movies. Non-conformists are not ‘kept in line because they believe they are already out of line’; this is an insult to non-conformists because it suggests that all non-conformists are delinquents and rule-breakers._ > > Emerson thought only extraordinary minds would take up the banner. In fact, these days practically everyone reguards themselves as hipper than thou. But to be a hipster, one must have squares. And if the establishment isn’t square enough to suit how hip you want to be, you make up a Straw Man Establishment and wail against it. Even Big Brother is shouting, “Down with Big Brother!” > > _As I said before, Emerson was talking to everyone, though he may have probably known that only a select group would agree with his message. But it was still to EVERYONE, not just “extraordinary minds”. And with all that talk about hipsters and squares, you’re doing exactly what non-conformity is against; enforcing social stereotypes. There is no such thing as a ‘square’; everyone is cool in their own way and among their friends. It’s just the really arrogant pricks of the world who try to designate something as “uncool”._ > > _Non-conformity_ as Emerson understood it is in crisis, because no one is willing to play the straight man. > \*\* _no, if anything, non-conformity is EXACTLY how Emerson wanted it; more people than ever are starting to embrace their individuality, not just the “extraordinary minds”. Non-conformity is acting unique and different from mainstream society. Transcendentalists were non-conformists of their time, but so were anyone else who acted against the social standards._ ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2000, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conformity/21019/8 "2000-05-31T23:08:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > _This is a matter of personal opinion. I am a rabid non-conformist, and I succeed quite well at it. In my non-conformity, I refuse to wear Tommy Hilfiger and Ambicrombie & Fitch not only because they are “conformist” brands, but also because I disagree with having to pay twice as much for a T-Shirt simply because the words ‘Ambicrombie & Fitch’ are written on it. My personal favorite store is Hot Topic, simply because they carry non-conformist clothing._ > \*\* This is a joke, right? I mean, you don’t really think that shopping at one chain store at the mall instead of another makes you a non-conformist, do you? ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2000, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conformity/21019/9 "2000-06-01T00:32:37Z")
There are non-conformists, and there are non-conformists. I’d say that there are conformist non-conformists who avoid conformity at all costs. They are therefore essentially conformists, because they are letting the engines of conformity make decisions for them (with the proviso that they will always do the opposite.) True non-conformists, like I try to be, pay no attention to who agrees or disagrees with them and keep their own counsel. I’ve been accused of conformity in certain matters of taste, and my response is always the same: “I’m not dressing like them. They happen to be dressed like me.” What I mean by this is that I make the choice, regardless of what other people are doing. ---
**Author:** ![Punyon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/eada6e/32.png) [@Punyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punyon)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2000, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conformity/21019/10 "2000-06-01T01:19:12Z")
I’m not saying that shopping at hot topic instead of Ambicrombie makes me a non-conformist. The point I’m making with that comparison is that you don’t see a lot of people running around in shirts that say “Hot Topic”. It’s the BRAND that I have a problem with. If Hot Topic even SOLD shirts that had their logo on it, and they sold them for twice the cost of a normal t-shirt, I’d probably stop shopping there, as well. I totally agree with Matt. As I said, I get along with a lot of people at my school who are conformists, hell, I’ve even DATED some of them! But when it comes to my dress sense, I dress the way I want without listening to criticism, and in fact I sometimes do radical stuff just to piss off the arrogant morons who think it’s their job to force me to conform by criticizing my style of dress. My personal favorite thing is my fedora and my anime shirts. I’ve worn them BOTH at once, and it’s gotten me some funny looks 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Angel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d26b3c/32.png) [@Johnny\_Angel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Angel)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2000, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conformity/21019/11 "2000-06-01T02:34:28Z")
**Punyon** wrote: > [@](#): > > no, if anything, non-conformity is EXACTLY how Emerson wanted it; more people than ever are starting to embrace their individuality, not just the “extraordinary minds”. Emerson was not an egalitarian even by the standards of his day, and certainly not by our modern standards. He does speak as though he is talking about something universal: _There is a time in every man’s education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; that he must take himself for better, for worse, as his portion; that though the wide universe is full of good, no kernel of nourishing corn can come to him but through his toil bestowed on that plot of ground which is given to him to till._ _We but half express ourselves, and are ashamed of that divine idea which each of us represents._ _Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string._ But this talk of every one, every man, is not really what he means. Emerson has to have conformists, and their presence must be ominous and oppressive: _These are the voices which we hear in solitude, but they grow faint and inaudible as we enter into the world. Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members. Society is a joint-stock company, in which the members agree, for the better securing of his bread to each shareholder, to surrender the liberty and culture of the eater._ But yet, they must ultimately succumb to the genius of the non-conformist: _What pretty oracles nature yields us on this text, in the face and behaviour of children, babes, and even brutes! That divided and rebel mind, that distrust of a sentiment because our arithmetic has computed the strength and means opposed to our purpose, these have not. Their mind being whole, their eye is as yet unconquered, and when we look in their faces, we are disconcerted. Infancy conforms to nobody: all conform to it, so that one babe commonly makes four or five out of the adults who prattle and play to it._ But what power does this baby he compares the non-conformist to have if there are no adults to _prattle and play to it_? Although he says: _I hope in these days we have heard the last of conformity and consistency._ He doesn’t mean for everybody, he really means for him: _A great man is coming to eat at my house. I do not wish to please him; I wish that he should wish to please me._ He claims that: _Every true man is a cause, a country, and an age; requires infinite spaces and numbers and time fully to accomplish his design; – and posterity seem to follow his steps as a train of clients._ But his examples exclude a lot of people from qualifying as _true men_: _A man Caesar is born, and for ages after we have a Roman Empire._ _Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh._ And he makes it clear that there must be a lot of lesser minds to make up the glory of one greater one: _Christ is born, and millions of minds so grow and cleave to his genius, that he is confounded with virtue and the possible of man. An institution is the lengthened shadow of one man; as, Monachism, of the Hermit Antony; the Reformation, of Luther; Quakerism, of Fox; Methodism, of Wesley; Abolition, of Clarkson. Scipio, Milton called “the height of Rome”; and all history resolves itself very easily into the biography of a few stout and earnest persons._ These _true men_ he talks about are a very elite class, defined only by the forces that they have flauted and the lesser minds they have bent to their will. In principle, not everyone can be a _true man_. Very few meet Emerson’s standards for non-conformity. Now, as to the rest of what you said: > [@](#): > > My personal favorite store is Hot Topic, simply because they carry non-conformist clothing. _snicker_ Sorry, what were you saying? > [@](#): > > Non-conformity isn’t “unnatural” because it’s not an instinct, it’s a personal choice that people make. Emerson would say that it’s an instinct, and the only choice is whether to follow that instinct. _Every man discriminates between the voluntary acts of his mind, and his involuntary perceptions, and knows that to his involuntary perceptions a perfect faith is due._ > [@](#): > > That’s their choice. However, I also don’t let my non-conformity make me see them as some kind of ‘enemy’. Emerson would see this acquiesence to society as _conformity_: _A man is to carry himself in the presence of all opposition, as if every thing were titular and ephemeral but he._ > [@](#): > > Emerson was not “wrong”, because as I said before, non-conformity is a matter of personal opinion, and therefore there is no right or wrong involved. _Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it._ > [@](#): > > Also, I have NEVER heard that “cliche” used. {“conforming to non-conformity”} I’ve heard it so many times, from so many sources I’m deeply sick of it. > [@](#): > > I believe you’re wrong in assuming that Emerson was only talking to a select group of people. He was talking to everyone, INCLUDING the “squares” and the “mediocre persons”. Self-Reliance is a call-to-arms for unenlightened non-conformists. Well, at least to all the Caesars, Jesuses and Emersons. > [@](#): > > I don’t see how you can call non-conformity ‘pop-culture’ … since non-conformity is not a single “style” of dress or acting, but is the art of being different than the mainstream majority of the people in actions, appearance, and world views. A pre-digested rhetoric, less complicated than the presumably expurgated version of _Self-reliance_ you read in high school, has promulgated through the culture and is used to sell products – especially `attitude’ t-shirts and bumper stickers. There’s are also pop-culture ready 5-minute microwavable versions of _nihilism_ and _Marxism_ available, and you can pick them up at your local mall. Here, I’ll start a shopping list for you: Nine Inch Nails, Rage Against the Machine, Marilyn Manson. > [@](#): > > Non-conformists are not ‘kept in line because they believe they are already out of line’; this is an insult to non-conformists because it suggests that all non-conformists are delinquents and rule-breakers. The commercialization of non-conformity has made it a commodity to be bought from a T-shirt catalog, and sets the boundaries to the limits of one’s earning power, which is tied to conformity. > [@](#): > > There is no such thing as a ‘square’; everyone is cool in their own way and among their friends. It’s just the really arrogant pricks of the world who try to designate something as “uncool”. If everybody’s _cool_, nobody’s _cool_. _Cool_ is not an absolute, but it doesn’t admit easily to relativism either. If _cool_ means having the admiration of one’s peers, then someone among your own peer group is less cool than the rest – that someone is _cool_ means someone else is _uncool_, and denying this doesn’t make anyone less of a prick, just more deluded. _Cool_ is not a natural right, and it cannot and need not be distributed fairly. As long as you’re unwilling to accept that there are hipsters and squares, you are not a non-conformist. As long as you are unwilling to make enemies, you are not an non-conformist. Not by Emerson’s standards. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2000, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conformity/21019/12 "2000-06-01T04:51:34Z")
Matt said: > [@](#): > > What I mean by this is that I make the choice, regardless of what other people are doing. This simply isn’t true, Matt. Our appereance, and especially our clothing, is an important part of the way we communicate. To deny that it has any social implications is as silly as saying that you choose what sounds come out of your mouth based on some personal, instinctive esthetic and that if other people want to assemble them into “words” and look for “meaning” in them that is their business. All of us pick our clothing as a way of representing who we are, or more precisely, who we want to be seen as. If I want people to think of me as a professional, I dress one way, if I want them to see me as a potential sex partner I dress another way, and if I want them to not notice me one way or the other I dress a third way. People automatically use their clothing to express great subtlities about themselves and who they are. This is not a bad thing–it saves us alot of time. For example, when I walk into an office for an interview and the person behind the desk is in cutoff jeans and a “Butthole Surfers” t-shirt, I imediatly know that I would do well to adopt a causual, friendly approach to the interview. I also immediatly know a good deal about the overall workplace enviroment. I am not doing something terrible by “judging from appereances”–I am reading the signals this person deliberatly choose to send. There are no neutral clothes. All clothes are a form of communication in which we tell the world how we choose to present ourselves. No “real you” exisits that can pick out clothes isolated from their social and cultural connotations. ---
**Author:** ![Lexicon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ac8455/32.png) [@Lexicon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lexicon)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2000, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conformity/21019/13 "2000-06-01T05:43:58Z")
Are clothes really that important? While I cannot disagree with anything you say, Manda, I can say that I elect to think that they’re not. I can acknowledge the fact that society recognizes the significance of clothing as a way to express yourself. I can acknowledge the fact that most people dress according to their mood, and according to the image the want to portray. I know I do. I am such a conformist. The thing is that these are only most people. I know a couple of people who either a) have no fashion sense whatsoever or b) just don’t care about all that stuff These people are my friends, and when they need to, they dress up quite nicely, for a wedding or a formal dinner or a job interview. But for normal everyday stuff, they show up looking like they dressed out of a salvation army reject grab bag. I work in a call center, so there is no dress code as long as you are covered and clean. So some of my friends will show up wearing old school style flip-flops, a pair of battery-acid stained swim trunks and a faded yellow tank top that says “Nintendo Power” on it. Oh yeah, and a Redskins cap. This guy is one of my close personal friends. I asked him why he dresses like such a loser, and he said “I don’t. I’m not here to impress anyone, and it’s comfortable. I have a few nice clothes for when I really need them, but I would rather spend my money on other things that make me happy.” I can’t argue with that. See, this is where your argument fails. I’m not saying you’re wrong, because you aren’t. What I am saying is that just because society at large draws conclusions from the way you dress, doesn’t mean that those conclusions are right. It doesn’t mean that the person who is making an impression with the way they dress means to make that impression. My friend dresses the way he does because that way he is not naked nor cold. It is purely functional for him. Weird. It took me ahile to get used to it, too. Anyway, once again, I think some very astute observations have been made, but keep in mind that some folks don’t give a damn what impression they make by the clothes they wear, as long as those clothes serve their purpose. The mere fact that as soon as someone says “conformity” people start to talk about clothes proves the point that Manda and others are trying to make. Way to go. ---
**Author:** ![Doobieous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/da6949/32.png) [@Doobieous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doobieous)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2000, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conformity/21019/14 "2000-06-01T09:10:11Z")
> [@](#): > > [B}Anyway, once again, I think some very astute observations have been made, but keep in mind that some folks don’t give a damn what impression they make by the clothes they wear, as long as those clothes serve their purpose. I’d say in many way’s i’m like this. Usually i dress how I want, which is comfortably. I wear my jeans, beat up shoes, and my often faded t-shirts around. However, I do care many times what people think, such as when I go to dinner with friends. My haircut is also one of those “trendy” types. I got it because I like it, and it looks nice on me, and I think I look good in it ;). So i guess in some ways I dont conform to mainstream society, but in many other ways I do. However, i do know people who really dont care at all how they dress, like lexicon said. Take for instance the “hippies” at my school. They often wander around campus barefoot. The women at least dont shave, and their clothes and hair often look messy. They even come to class like that. They dont really care what others think. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2000, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conformity/21019/15 "2000-06-01T16:57:08Z")
Doobious said: > [@](#): > > Take for instance the “hippies” at my school. They often wander around campus barefoot. The women at least dont shave, and their clothes and hair often look messy. They even come to class like that. They dont really care what others think. This is not a bad description of me, actually, although I wear shoes (birkenstock knockoffs). I would be willing to bet they at least care that others know that they are the sort of person who dosen’t care what people think, or the sort of person who isn’t interested in playing their game. Lexicon said: > [@](#): > > This guy is one of my close personal friends. I asked him why he dresses like such a loser, and he said “I don’t. I’m not here to impress anyone, and it’s comfortable. I have a few nice clothes for when I really need them, but I would rather spend my money on other things that make me happy.” What you friend is saying here with his mouth is exactly what he was already saying with his clothing choices. Much of this is unconcious, but I am willing to gamble that virtually everyone does it. For example, if you friend shops primarily at Salvation Army thrift shtores, concerned only with what is warm and decent, he should dress at least some of the time in old-man up-to-the-armpit pants and ugly eighties button-ups–these are the two most easily grabbed items at most Salvation Army thrift stores, because this is where everyone sends grandpa’s clothes when he dies. But I suspect that without even noticing these things your friend bypasses them for clothes that are more age-appropriate and appealing. On the most basic level, I am sure he notices how clothes are engendered, and makes sure to pick the right ones. ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2000, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conformity/21019/16 "2000-06-01T17:18:40Z")
well i i only buy new clothes and i only buy grey shirts/and jeans. Those old clothes arent in every salvation army and even if they were they are probably of poor quality and basically worthless. The diffrence with me is i wear clothes untill they break, and often after. I do agree that non conformity is unnatural because its alot eaiser to conform, but i cant do it and probably never will be able to. ---
**Author:** ![Punyon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/eada6e/32.png) [@Punyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punyon)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2000, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conformity/21019/17 "2000-06-02T00:46:18Z")
Johnny Angel, your arguments are based on the assumption that Emerson’s ‘Self-Reliance’ is used as a basis for determining what non-conformity is. While Emerson was a non-conforminst (he was a Transcendentalist) who wrote about his views on non-conformity, this does not somehow make him an expert on the definition of a non-conformist, nor does his fame as a kick ass poet. You can’t try to tell someone that they’re not a non-conformist if they belive they are; that’s like trying to tell someone they’re not their religion. And by the way, as I mentioned BEFORE, when I mentioned Hot Topic, I was using it as a COMPERISON to other stores such as Ambicrombie & Fitch; Ambicrombie feels justified in selling a T-shirt with it’s logo on it for twice the cost of a typical T-shirt at Hot Topic; Hot Topic doesn’t even MAKE T-shirts with it’s logo on em. Hence, I like Hot Topic instead of Ambicrombie. I don’t ONLY shop at Hot Topic. It’s illogical to assume that from my statement. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2000, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conformity/21019/18 "2000-06-02T01:13:26Z")
OK, Manda, you’re right, my statement wasn’t accurate. What I meant was that I don’t dress any particular way because it’s either cool or fashionable; of course I recognize the standards of society and use them as I see fit. I’m well aware that when I’m wearing goth, people are looking at me like I’m a freak. My point was that I don’t wear goth to fit in as a goth (I only know one other goth - how am I supposed to fit in with one person? He’s my best friend anyway, if I’m in goth or not), nor to specifically say fuck you to people dressing like preppies. I dress goth because I think it looks bitching on me. It’s the same way that I express my thoughts in English, but I don’t express given thoughts specifically because they’re either trendy or comforting. I express thoughts that I agree with. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Angel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d26b3c/32.png) [@Johnny\_Angel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Angel)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2000, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conformity/21019/19 "2000-06-02T03:11:42Z")
**Punyon** wrote: > [@](#): > > Johnny Angel, your arguments are based on the assumption that Emerson’s ‘Self-Reliance’ is used as a basis for determining what non-conformity is. I have made no such assumption. You made claims about Emerson, and I quoted Emerson to show you that he didn’t believe what you seemed to think he believed. But since you are now claiming that Emerson didn’t mean what you mean by `non-conformity,’ I have convinced you of the point I was trying to make – namely that the following statements made by you about Emerson were wrong: > [@](#): > > no, if anything, non-conformity is EXACTLY how Emerson wanted it; more people than ever are starting to embrace their individuality, not just the “extraordinary minds”. > [@](#): > > I believe you’re wrong in assuming that Emerson was only talking to a select group of people. He was talking to everyone, INCLUDING the “squares” and the “mediocre persons”. Self-Reliance is a call-to-arms for unenlightened non-conformists. You claimed that Emerson agreed with you, and when I showed you in his own words that he didn’t, you changed your mind but somehow have concluded that I was the one who was wrong. Read it over, won’t you? > [@](#): > > While Emerson was a non-conforminst (he was a Transcendentalist) who wrote about his views on non-conformity, this does not somehow make him an expert on the definition of a non-conformist In fact, I was the one who said he was wrong to begin with, and you disagreed with me. > [@](#): > > You can’t try to tell someone that they’re not a non-conformist if they belive they are; that’s like trying to tell someone they’re not their religion. Do you really mean to claim that believing that one is a non-conformist is a sufficient criterion for being one? Those people buying Abicrombie and Fitch T-shirts think they’re non-conformists just as much as the people buying Hot Topic T-shirts. But you sure seem convinced they’re not. Do you think any of them would admit to knuckling under to societal pressure any more than you do? > [@](#): > > Hot Topic doesn’t even MAKE T-shirts with it’s logo on em. Hence, I like Hot Topic instead of Ambicrombie. My t-shirts come in a three-pack for six bucks. Are Hot Topic shirts that cheap? If not, then what are you paying for? You’re paying so that you can say you shop at Hot Topic. > [@](#): > > I don’t ONLY shop at Hot Topic. It’s illogical to assume that from my statement. I never assumed anything of the kind, though you managed to make the very same mistake you’re accusing me of even in the process of making the accusation. Look, you reguard yourself as a non-conformist and you clearly take some pride in it. But a lot of people have done serious thinking about the subject of conformity and non-conformity, and if you’re really serious about it you should look into it. Furthermore, you should listen to what I have to say, because I have been doing serious thinking about this for years.