In the Army, we started each day stateside with P.T. (Physical Training). Believe it or not, I didn't always look like I do now, and physical maintenance was a large part of our regimen. Ostensibly our fitness directly played into our ability to engage the enemy, but I rather think it was to avoid the embarrassment of several hundred thousand gourmands rolling instead of marching in review. During our P.T. sessions, three commands given were "Cover!" and "Re-Cover!", followed by "Even ranks, one step to the left, Un-Cover!" This may seem unrelated to the topic at hand, but it's not. The command of "Cover!" was issued to make sure that all individuals in the platoon were at an equal distance from the rank directly in front of them, ensuring uniformity in the formation; at the given command, each Soldier raised his left hand directly in front of himself to make sure that he was standing no more than an arm's length plus six inches from the rank in front of him. At the command of "Re-Cover!", each Soldier dropped his hand. At the last command, each Soldier in even ranks took one step directly to his left.
In considering those actions, the typical uniformity of non-conformity strikes me. This process, in which the platoon no longer adhered to a nice, neat, geometric pattern, was still a strictly regimented action. And I find that we see that in the civilian world, too. Even non-conformist groups tend to adhere to strict regimentation, belief structures, and sub-cultural norms. When I was growing up, goth kids were the "non-conformists," who expressed their individuality by conforming with each other. Today, we have so-called "emos," libertarians, feminists, gay communities (no, this isn't a comment on sexuality, but rather communities that spring up deciding norms about sexuality), so on and so forth. For myself, I see little difference between putting on your work clothes, and South Park's take on would-be 'rebels.'
Here's the ultimate point: To what extent to people truly differ from societal norms because that's how the really feel, and who they really are, and to what extent to people 'rebel' in order to conform to fit other societal norms? Are even those people who don't "cover," really "covering" to meet with someone else or some other group's approval? To what extent are non-conformists truly themselves? I wonder about this quite a bit.
Growing up, I never fit in- with anyone. I was definitely never one of the 'normal' kids, 'cool' kids, or one of the 'accepted' group. On the flip side, I couldn't stand the nerds who wouldn't stand up for themselves, the goth kids, the 'weird' ones, whatever. It's been suggested that perhaps I don't understand the issues Yoshino brought up; I counter that I understand them just fine. I always have. In fact I was targeted- repeatedly- by people who took advantage of my loner traits, stand-offishness, what have you. I've been beaten, tortured, stabbed, burned, and shot (don't get too excited, it was a graze). That was just in school, and all by my so-called peers.
But fearing to be who you are, regardless of peer pressure, philosophical stances on what you think you should or shouldn't be, etc, only detracts from your desire to gain respect as an individual or, rather as a free individual.
My personal thought is that Yoshino is a coward, and has always been. I've been able to successfully be who I am (successfully defined as consistently being myself, not King of All) throughout my life, and I'm hardly a paragon of idealistic moral rectitude. So if an average, run-of-the-mill, awkward, pissed-off kid (and later adult) managed to match his outward self with his inner self, why couldn't Yoshino? Why can't everyone?
I don't really have an answer that I find acceptable. Perhaps one of you does.
Pete, don't you think it is a little harsh calling Yoshino a coward? Let's say that Yoshino was born as a straight, white American. His sexual identification and his heritage would be more aligned with the status quo and he would feel more comfortable with himself in social situations. Rather than cowardice, it might be more accurate to refer to Yoshino as conservative because he doesn't like to draw attention to his background in public places. You would probably agree that not all people with conservative personalities are cowards. He definitely agrees with you that fearing to be who you are hurts your ability as a free individual and that is why he wrote this book. I admire your ability to be so comfortable with yourself but the unfortunate truth is that most people are not.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of non-comformists comforming to each other has always been an interesting paradox and in the end it is probably because people are social beings and seek some form of acceptance in life, whether that be with the jocks or the goths. I would argue that US politics are more conformist than ever because the majority of voting Americans adhere to the far right or the far left, without considering their actual beliefs. Does this make it wrong that people who align more closely middle of the road approach, such as Libertarians, are conforming just for the hell of it? Even if it is, at least it is promoting different ideas and the Libertarian presence has forced people to consider something other than the mainstream.