Conformity and the Myth of Dissidence

We all know the type – the swaggered, slightly-rugged, liberal and outspoken contender to all things establishment. We know them by their typical self-identified labels – rebels, nonconformists, Bohemians, those who claim to be original, fresh, real, those who fight the establishment, those who think they are fighting the establishment, and so on.

It isn’t a new idea, but it seems to bear repeating particularly at college campuses. How many people do you know that claim to be against the establishment, to be nonconformists, and silently leading some plight against the oppressive government (that so happens to partially fund the university as well as offer low-interest loans to such noble freedom fighters)? How many of you have friends who have college-aged kids that profess their love for the Earth and they would give up their lives to defend the freedom of a single wronged individual halfway across the world? I would imagine some of you reading this right now believe you oppose the man or whatever else you convinced yourself of – and of which all your similarly minded friends agree.

The truth is, and I stress I know this is not a new idea, that there is no such thing as a nonconformist by definition. Likewise, there are almost no, if any at all, nonconformists by “practical interpretation.”

The idea of a nonconformist is someone who opposes the norm, goes against the grain, or marches to the beat of a different cliche or whatever. The point in all of these, is that they define themselves by conformity. If you go against the norm, you are still self-defined by the norm. If you go against the grain you still go in a direction dictated by where the grain goes. I know this is a technicality, but it applies to real life too.

I know of a young man who believes studying humanities or politics to be wrong because those who do are merely cogs in the system that oppresses them. To become a government employee is fit for mindless and brainwashed sheep. Unsurprisingly, he is a student also, but believes his field of study – related to numbers and math – is neutral and the weapon of those who fight the system. Regardless of whether or not math is trendy or rebellious or whatever, he still is a piece of this machinery he calls the university. I find it endlessly ironic that he studies humanities on the side, but as a way of “enhancing” his outlook and enjoyment. Although unfit for a superior beatnik mind like his own to study in depth as a means to make a living down the road, he studies them for his own personal enjoyment of the finer things in life.

Like it or not, being part of the counter-system that thinks it opposes the system, is still part of the system. You are still defined by the masses even if you actively fight such labels. Living “off the grid” a la Terminator 3 doesn’t make you any less part of the grid. While I would like to be able to say I am completely original, true to myself, and unique, I am merely another cog writing a blog. I am a “blogger” despite the fact I hate the word “blog” and abhor the “blogosphere.” My voice against the popular voice is just part of the soundscape. My voice in support of the popular voice is just another sliver of the masses.

May 15th: The Sheep (and Oil Companies) Will Have Their Day

Apparently the social network websites are crawling with calls to boycott gasoline on May 15th.  As it turns out, environmentalism and sticking it to “the man” are still sexy and people will be doing their part to be sexy.  For a day.

The idea that if the entire nation, or even all of North America decides not buy gasoline on the 15th the oil companies and gas station owners will “choke” on the reserve and be forced to lower gas prices. Sounds good, right? I will probably participate in this event without even realizing it.  I buy gas at a rate of about three times a month, so the odds of me buying gas on the 15th are already fairly low. This will likely be the case with most people.  However, some people will hit a quarter tank on the 14th and decide not to tempt fate and fill up on the 14th.  Some people will chance it, and fill up on the 16th.  Regardless, the gas will still be used and the money will still be spent.  It’s just a matter of the day before or the day after the “gas-out.”  There is no reduction in usage or consumption – people will still drive on the 15th, heat their homes, and fly airplanes on the 15th.  A one-day boycott will have effect on long-term or even short-term gas prices.  The best case scenario would be a few cent decline on the 16th to rid of the “excess.”

More likely though, the surge of people purchasing on the 14th will result in higher gas prices on the 14th, then the sudden drop out on the 15th will make prices fall a few cents below par. Of course, no one will buy gas on the 15th to enjoy the brief $3.05 prices (down from $3.09).  Then, on the 16th, people will buy again and prices will probably go up a few cents to $3.12 or so.  So in reality, people will be spending more money on gas than if they just bought as normal and let the price stay stable at 3.09.  Not that a few cents really matters when it’s already over $3.

The only way to successfully boycott gasoline is to simply consume less.  A very, very minimal start for the 15th could be to walk that day, or bike, or get around in some fashion that doesn’t use any gasoline.  Better yet, we could consume just a little bit less every single day instead of consuming none on one day of the year.  So next time you want to drive to the bank or the grocery store or to whatever minor errand you are running, think about this…

• If 10% of Americans aged 18 or more walked/biked/whatever-ed a half a mile every week instead of driving, we would save over 29 million gallons of gas per year.
• If we did it every day, it could be over 203 gallons a year.
• If half of Americans 18 or over did it, it would save over a billion gallons a year.
• If 3/4 of 18+ Americans did it for a mile each day, it would save 3.05 billion (3,045,000,000) gallons a year.

So get out there and walk.

Serving Justice

I was talking to someone recently about the philosophy of how justice should be served. They (he/she) says that justice should be about punishing the guilty, and if a few innocents need to be harmed in the process, that is alright. This isn’t to say that the other person necessarily believes in harming innocents or wants an overbearing legal system. They (I will continue to use “they” improperly to maintain gender neutrality without constantly writing he/she) said that it is better to take away the criminals at the risk of false positives on innocents.

I responded that protection of innocents must always be served, and if a few guilty people have to be set free, it is alright. I don’t believe in a weak legal or police system, but I believe that wrongly imprisoned innocent people is a greater risk to society than criminals escaping their due punishment.

There are two real issues at the heart of this debate: 1) should the guilty be uncompromisingly condemned and are all guilty people equally guilty, and 2) which disenfranchises people more – guilty going free, or innocents wrongly incarcerated?

I believe, and it is completely subjective, that people are good and can reform. A wrongdoer is not necessarily a wrong-doer for life, and letting a guilty person go free does not necessarily mean they will commit crimes again in the future. Take a protester at a rally that gets out of hand who is arrested for failure to disperse. Is this a person who deserves permanent marks on his or her criminal record? To be the one person arrested out of a group of 4,000 seems unfair, and looks like more of an example than criminal. This would serve the justice philosophy that the innocent must sometimes be punished to protect against the guilty, in this case, deter the guilty.

The question of disenfranchsing the public is one I cannot answer. I don’t know how the mass of people think on this, but I believe that I would be more dissatisfied if I were wrongly arrested than if a known criminal that got off inflicted harm on me. I can easily become the victim of random violence by a known criminal or an innocent’s first time with crime. Its true that it is a question of existential proximity (credit to my college History teacher for that term). I cannot really say which I would prefer until I experienced both, which I would prefer not to experience either. The fact is that it is easy to stand on your moral high ground until you find yourself in situation and your decisions and reaction can impact your own life. Do I know for sure I believe this way? Not really, but having experienced neither, I retain my right to make this impersonal judgment.

Is a wrongdoer now a wrongdoer later? I don’t know, but on the other hand, it is not a fact that an innocent will remain as one later. To say that innocents must be protected doesn’t mean that all innocents are equally innocent in the same manner that all guilty are not always equally guilty. In either system, there will be false positives and false negatives, and they must be dealt with. No system will be perfect, and it is naive to think it is possible. As such, people must decide under which banner of justice they wish to rally. I hope that we one day find our humanity and agree to protect the innocent. But that could just be me.