BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Conformity, equality and society today

  
 
No star here laces
15:43 / 23.12.01
'pologies for the long post...

I’ve recently been reading Fromm. It’s very interesting stuff, and there are a lot of interesting analyses. But, reading this, and knowing that it was first published in 1957, I find it hard to accept the way Fromm talks about ‘conformity’ and ‘equality’ in his work. It strikes me that in terms of ‘conforming’ society has changed a lot since 1957, but that it is the outdated version of the concept that remains the most commonly used.

A classic way of looking at conformity, and the approach used by Fromm is to say that it is a desire to affirm one’s commonality with humanity. This desire is manifested by behaving in a way consistent with the mass of people around one – ‘the herd’ as Fromm calls it (shades of ‘happy sheep’ one feels…) He talks about conforming in terms of dress, mood and entertainment; and of settling into a routine where everything is done at the same time, over and over again.

Relating this to equality, Fromm contends that the notion of equality in modern society means "sameness rather than oneness" – people have the same choices, same clothes, same opportunities etc. As opposed to the socialist or enlightenment definitions of equality which would stress the abolition of exploitation as being the key factor in an equal society. The difference being, clearly, that the capitalist definition, at best, allows everyone the chance to be the one doing the exploiting, but doesn’t mitigate against exploitation in general.

To link the two concepts:

quote:
Contemporary society preaches each one the same, to make them function in a mass aggregation, smoothly, without friction; all obeying the same commands, yet everybody being convinced that he is following his own desires. Just as modern mass production requires the standardisation of commodities, so the social process requires standardisation of man, and this standardisation is called ‘equality’.


My issue with this is that following the countercultural explosion of the sixties and the subsequent normalisation of youthful rebellion into the capitalist orthodoxy things have changed dramatically. The marketing of goods is no longer mass – it is niche. Marketers seek to identify the segment of the population most suited to their product and then advertise aggressively to that segment. The removal of a widely accepted canonical ‘high’ culture and mashing together of populist and intellectual art forms has led to more varied and idiosyncratic entertainment choices.

In short the concept of a mainstream, conformist society where all individuals seek to be alike is simply no longer applicable. Capitalism no longer works on the basis of mass production, but instead on mass customisation. Not mass marketing, niche marketing.

With this as a given, what does it now mean to ‘conform’? What is the most relevant way to approach ‘equality’ in today’s society? How do these concepts interact?
 
 
Disco is My Class War
01:32 / 27.12.01
Oooh, ooh, someone is using the break to use their brains. I think you're right in arguing that conformity and equality have changed because of the use of fragmented, 'niche market' corporate culture. And yet everyone is still expected to consume, no?

I'll have to come back to this, I'm about to go to the dentist for the first time in about five years. Oh, the joy, the terror, the pain.
 
 
cusm
15:07 / 27.12.01
Oh goody, something to chew on

I like the idea of equality as applied to opportunity and potention. Put in a capitolist setting, this includes an equal opportunity to oppress your neighbor. I like social Darwinism. Not all men are created equal. But in a setting with an equal opportunity for all, the better man will succeed.

As for conformity, I think the presence of the "Alternative" music section in the record store being as large as the Rock or Jazz sections says a lot. Subculture and niches are grouped together into like groups, so wider labels can be applied to them. There is an organic repeated pattern of separationism to seek identity, and then collecting those with similar identities again into a subculture. As the subculture grows, it becomes mainstream culture, and the cycle begins again. Only, there doesn't seem to be much of a "mainstream" culture, so much as the subscultures which have become dominant. Rather than conformity to an offical highest culture, we have a confederation of competing subcultures that make up the whole, each of which strives for internal conformity while fighting for uniqueness from competing cultures. I'm different, just like all of my friends.

So I see confirming as being like any established culture, be they sub- or mainstream. Or at least, actively trying to do so. It is the act of attempting to be like others than defines one as conforming. If I'm just trying to do my own thing, but end up going the same was as a subculture by chance, I'll be seen as conforming, though I'll deny it.

For fun games with this idea, try asking a goth if they are goth. They'll deny it till they drown in mascara, just like the Sisters of Mercy are just a rock and roll band.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
15:51 / 27.12.01
I think conformity, from what I gather from your description of Fromm's thoughts on the matter above, is the opposite force to anomie, defined in the quote below ( a snippet from the genius Momus's essay "Cute Formalism")

quote:Anomie-A term coined by French sociologist Emile Durkheim in the late 19th century. The literal meaning is 'without law'. Durkheim used it to explain how crime spreads when social control of individual behavior has become ineffective, and, later, to explain why individuals commit suicide. In both cases, anomie is a state of low morale arising from the absence of conventions, shared perceptions and goals. The term implies that conformity to norms is natural and normal; that resistance is pathological.


Anomie, and its flipside, nihilism, are the dominant tropes of youth culture (counterculture) in the West today. Life without conformity, without forms to fit into, is increasinly seen as meaningless. This is not to say that the forms themselves (religion, politics, consumption, what have you) are intrinsically meaningful or that some forms are more meaningful than others. Rather, I think it is intrinsic for humans to try to universalize experience into a form, because we are social creatures. A human being couldn't be a human being outside of society. The form of "man" may be a new and transitory invention, as Foucault implies, but anything that replaces it will also be new and transitory.

Incidentally, Lyra, your statement quote:Capitalism no longer works on the basis of mass production, but instead on mass customisation. Not mass marketing, niche
marketing.

seems, to me, to be an example of the kind of thinking you decry in another thread, namely the couching of ethics/self definition in terms of consumption. Can we get away from a definition of conformity that depends on what one consumes or what one is sold?
 
 
grant
14:17 / 28.12.01
Isn't niche marketing just a fractal-style iteration of mass marketing?

Why should it behave differently just because of different scale??
 
 
Fist Fun
11:18 / 01.01.02
quote: Relating this to equality, Fromm contends that the notion of equality in modern society means "sameness rather than oneness" – people have the same choices, same clothes, same opportunities etc. As opposed to the socialist or enlightenment definitions of equality which would stress the abolition of exploitation as being the key factor in an equal society. The difference being, clearly, that the capitalist definition, at best, allows everyone the chance to be the one doing the exploiting, but doesn’t mitigate against exploitation in general.

But wouldn't Fromm's definition of equality allow everyone the chance to exploit at all times? Meaning that exploitation would not be a permanent condition, but rather a process with constant opportunities for escape/advancement. This would change the nature of the initial exploitation.
 
 
inteceptor
02:00 / 05.01.02
Im conforming by posting this reply right? equality is one of those high brow concepts that people keep struggling with. Its like freedom. . nothing that is free values freedom at all its wotdyamacallit? intrinsic? insipid? to close to your nose for you to see? Do as you would be done by means the suicidal go out on a killing spree. . nuclear equality means were equally deaded. .equal inflluence on reality? i think it depends on the hand you've been dealt. .
loves inteceptor x x x
 
  
Add Your Reply