The Ultimate Nonconformist

December 17, 2005 10:32 AM

How would the Ultimate Nonconformist behave, dress, eat, and live?

Speaking hypothetically: What would happen if there was a person who was free of mental illness, basically intelligent, and had all normal human needs and wants with the following major exception: He is in no way influenced by cultural norms, the opinions of others, or the expectations of society in any way whatsoever. Would this person be capable of sustained relationships? How would he dress, eat, earn a living, and entertain himself? Would he live within the law? Is it possible that he would do some things that would be unthinkable for the rest of us?

posted by crapples to human relations (42 comments total)

Well, he couldn't possibly be capable of relationships, because he wouldn't be able to speak. To speak language is to take on many of the prejudices of it's culture.
posted by phrontist at 10:38 AM on December 17, 2005

And why "he"?
posted by phrontist at 10:38 AM on December 17, 2005

I think that most schizophrenics fit this category pretty well.
posted by Afroblanco at 10:39 AM on December 17, 2005

Or, to rephrase: given that they weren't actually schizophrenic, they would certainly appear as such to the outside world.
posted by Afroblanco at 10:40 AM on December 17, 2005

Like Zarathustra, he would go up the mountain. Unlike Zarathustra, he would stay there. The rest is gravy.
posted by milquetoast at 10:40 AM on December 17, 2005

Humans are very societal animals, I think not being at all influenced by culture would probably be considered by many psychologists to be a mental illness.
His capability in relationships would depend on whether he was a non-conformist in that he was just different, or that he tried actively to not please people, because a fundamental part of most relationships involves actively trying to make the other person happy.
on preview: what phrontist says too.
posted by martinX's bellbottoms at 10:42 AM on December 17, 2005

Like this.
posted by StickyCarpet at 10:44 AM on December 17, 2005

The Ultimate Nonconformist does not behave, dress, eat, or live.
posted by ijoshua at 10:45 AM on December 17, 2005

Well, certainly not "dress", if it was warm enough. Let it all hang out!
posted by smackfu at 10:47 AM on December 17, 2005

Well, "he" would go naked, he wouldn't, and he would die.

But seriously, I don't think it's possible to be this much of a non-conformost without being a little bit crazy. Normal for humans is to be very social animals, and conformity is a big part of that. So I'm not sure meaningful answers can really be given. Because being bereft of the very normal, productive human want of peer acceptance puts one pretty far outside the realm of normal.

But, at the very least, the answer for this non-conformist would be entirely different depending upon which culture he was busy not conforming with. It would seem as simple as "being a Westerner in Japan" might be a valid answer, even though it comes to the issue from a direction which you didn't intend. Since things like dress, diet, etc. are often subject to much that is very arbitrary, the non-conformist would have a huge range of ways to not fit in.

I really don't think there is a specific answer to your question.
posted by teece at 10:48 AM on December 17, 2005

I think you have to drink coffee to be a nonconformist.
posted by sanko at 10:49 AM on December 17, 2005

There's really only one person to ask.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:52 AM on December 17, 2005

I always figured being a nonconformist meant that you did things not because it was the "in thing" to do but just because you wanted to.
posted by divabat at 11:14 AM on December 17, 2005

Exactly, divabat: I assume that he/she would still WANT to do certain things (like maybe learn to talk or make a living) because of his/her basic desire to survive. And isn't it possible that he/she might even want to make other people happy, even though his/her own behavior was never influenced by what others expected of him/her?

I don't think he/she would go naked, especially if it killed him/her. That would violate his/her desire to survive, which isn't in question.

I agree that there's not a specific answer to this question, and of course it's an impossible scenario, but I'm just wondering what the general thinking is on the subject.
posted by crapples at 11:24 AM on December 17, 2005

And why "he"?

Because he is a sexless pronoun suitable for this case. There are others, but english offers this one which sounds much more normal than saying "one" all day long. It's up to the writer to decide. They/their would be ok, but "he" is simply accurate and to the point without even the slightest possibility of plural/singular confusion. Basically, you're only right on this topic if you don't complain
posted by shepd at 11:25 AM on December 17, 2005

There's really only one person to ask.
posted by LarryC at 11:26 AM on December 17, 2005

To not conform doesn't necessarily mean not do at all, it just means (in my interpretation of the definition) to not let customs, beliefs, or practices influence the choices you make in life. Pretty close to impossible, I'd say.

But let's pretend that someone did consider themselves a nonconformist (a vote for conformity already?) - they'd probably wear whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted without worrying about what a "nonconformist" would wear (or eat, or do, or whatever). Worrying about things like that would, in my opinion, be conforming - even if it is conforming to a nonconformist's customs.

So I guess he or she would wear or do anything they want, so as long as they didn't make a conscious decision to allow the choices be determined by outside influences. That's nonconformity, in my opinion.

You wouldn't have to break the law, or you wouldn't have to cease all relationships, but you wouldn't base your choices in those areas on what other people or society in general would think.
posted by nitsuj at 11:30 AM on December 17, 2005

You need to look at how the very rich live, since they need not conform to anyone's requirements in order to make a living, and possible mates will present themselves and work to make themselves acceptable, rather than vice versa.

Ladies and gentlement, I give you Paris Hilton.
posted by zadcat at 11:33 AM on December 17, 2005

The Unabomber..
posted by jgee at 11:41 AM on December 17, 2005

It's not possible for a person to operate completely free of societal impact. We're programmed as a species to interact, to form relationships. Even someone who deliberately isolates themselves and makes a point of not "conforming" is making a decision based on the society and culture they've experienced.

Most of the really popular things people do - like feed themselves, have romances, go to the movies, drink coffee - are not things that society forces on us, they are things that are more or less universally enjoyable or beneficial to the people experiencing them. People make society, not vice-versa.
posted by chudmonkey at 11:59 AM on December 17, 2005

Maybe he would be completely utilitarian. Wear whatever clothes were good for the weather, eat nutritious food that he liked, earn a living in whatever field he was talented in and was well paid.

Then again, maybe he would wear whatever clothes were more likely to get him laid. Is this conformist or rational thinking?
posted by lunkfish at 12:06 PM on December 17, 2005

The Ultimate Nonconformist doesn't even ask the question, he simply goes about doing as he pleases, paying no mind to what he should or should not be doing. Any similarity that could be strewn as conformity can be simply discarded as coincidence.

"Crazy people don't spend their time wondering if they're crazy..." - Anthony Hopkins in Proof
posted by vanoakenfold at 12:17 PM on December 17, 2005

He would sleep on a single bed in a small room, eat 3 squares a day in the caffeteria, and get to exercise for an hour or two a day. Until the other prisoners shanked him, anyway.
posted by Hildago at 12:25 PM on December 17, 2005

Feral children are as close as you'll get to answering this question.
posted by phrontist at 12:48 PM on December 17, 2005

Ladies and gentlement, I give you Paris Hilton.

Thanks.
posted by Paris Hilton at 12:57 PM on December 17, 2005

Then again, maybe he would wear whatever clothes were more likely to get him laid. Is this conformist or rational thinking?

That's the real question. There are practical benefits to conforming in some ways, so a person may rationally choose to conform not because they have an innate desire to conform but simply because they appreciate the practical effect.
posted by Paris Hilton at 1:00 PM on December 17, 2005

Like this guy.
posted by ori at 1:00 PM on December 17, 2005

He is in no way influenced by cultural norms, the opinions of others, or the expectations of society in any way whatsoever.

Depends upon by what you mean for "influenced." If the person is able to identify the cultural norms and stray from them he or she could still be influenced by them at just the acknowledgement. If by what you mean is that the person can make an independent choice by being uninfluenced by cultural norms I think it is possible although not plausible.

I would imagine that such a person would have to be well cultured to begin with in order to dissect what is and what isn't a cultural norm. There is much debate about what a cultural norm is or isn't and it seems to me that it would be difficult for a single person to try to understand that.

What I am saying is that such a person would have to be omniscient and thus by being omniscient the person would still be influenced by the cultural norms at their presence. You can't avoid something if you dont know what it is and if you know what cultural norms are then you can't avoid them. I think what you really mean is how does a person keep cultural norms from superimposing on a behavior that is objective.
posted by j-urb at 1:10 PM on December 17, 2005

I'll second LarryC's suggestion that Thoreau says more than anyone else of what there is to say about it. Consider, though, that not every "ultimate non-conformist" is going to be the same as all the others, so there's no real absolute answer.
posted by sfenders at 1:44 PM on December 17, 2005

I should add that, upon further reflection, what you are describing would often be called a sociopath.

"Nonconformist" does not seem like the right word to use here, at all. Nonconformists do interact with their society -- indeed, many of them have a burning desire to show that society that their particular brand of non-conformity is good. Non-conformists still want friends, and probably still value family. Nonconformist often do something that they really want their peers to understand, and maybe even enjoy and love.

Some one that really does not care about societal norms at all will either end up in juvie and then jail, or become a good actor, and be the classic sociopath. How would you have a relationship with someone that honestly did not care at all what you thought or felt? Answer: you wouldn't, unless they lie to you and pretend to care.

Further, if you really don't give a hoot that society find murder and cannibalism abhorent, and it turns you on, then yes, you'll do it. You'll accept the norm that says "don't do it" exists, and thus hide the action, but you'll still do it.

This would not be a fun person. He or she would embody the very definition of ultimate selfishness, I think.
posted by teece at 2:42 PM on December 17, 2005

Any way they felt like?

It seems like by asking for a set of behaviors for this "Ultimate Nonconformist" to follow, you're just asking them to conform to noncomformity.
posted by schroedinger at 3:03 PM on December 17, 2005

Er, nonconformity.
posted by schroedinger at 3:04 PM on December 17, 2005

I know a guy like this. He's a nice guy. He got an engineering degree, but while in school fell in with a gambling ring that hit the blackjack tables at the casinos around here. I say fell in, and gambling ring, but these guys had done the math, they weren't amateurs. Apparently he made enough to buy a condo and not have to work.
Anyway, he spends most of his time travelling, as far as I can tell; he's got a buddy who flies for Continental who gets him tickets. He's pretty quiet. I haven't often dug deep into conversation with him, but the times I have I've heard sort of an Ayn Rand-ish self-reliance theme. Not that he's been obnoxious. He is extremely low key. All of us who know him joke that he's killing people for the CIA when he goes on these trips, because he's so unobtrusive. His dress is nothing eyebrow-raising, and he drives a Civic.

I've met one or two more people in this same sort of situation. I'd say nonconformity doesn't have to be some wild-eyed Unibomber thing, it's just setting your own agenda.
posted by atchafalaya at 3:14 PM on December 17, 2005

He is in no way influenced by cultural norms, the opinions of others, or the expectations of society in any way whatsoever.

The only way to do this would be to avoid all contact and knowledge of society. It is impossible to exist within a society and be completely free from its influence. And no, if you are not influenced at all by the opinions of others, I don't think it would be possible to maintain inter-personal relationships, unless perhaps the other people were the same way.
posted by ludwig_van at 3:33 PM on December 17, 2005

There's the active nonconformist, who goes around explicitly behaving counter to societal norms just for the sake of irritating people. Whenever I see this guy I give him a brisk smack on the side of the head.

Then there's the passively nonconformist guy, who simply avoids following trends and avoids wearing advertisements for clothing manufacturors. He is content, and uses his spare mental capabilities working on real problems. Whenever I see this guy, I give him whatever money I have on me at the moment.
posted by neuron at 9:08 PM on December 17, 2005

yeah, what neuron said. The real nonconformist doesn't wear t-shirts bragging about it or dye her/his hair pink and get piercings.
posted by craniac at 9:28 PM on December 17, 2005

Assume that there is a median culture (oh, how Platonic of us), and that the distance (as measured in some metric) between two cultures can be measured.

If we find the distances of all the persons on the planet to the median cultural normal behaviors (MCNBs for short, I think), we can consider that a measure of their social conformity. How far out do you have to be to be considered "not influenced at all"?

And, what does "influenced" mean, anyway? Am I influenced by a car if I step out of its way? The MCNBs of a culture are as real as that car. You have to react to some of them, or you wind up dead.

The other neat thing in all of this is that there are no statistically normal folks. They don't exist. Can't exist. They're harder to find than unicorns wearing leprechaun-skin boots.

You have to keep in mind that you're looking at aggregate data formed from the trillions of events occuring in the world at any time by billions of individuals. Nobody follows the statistical norm 100% of the time. It's a contradiction--since following the statistical norm is abnormal, it cannot be done.

Likewise, you cannot have an actor that does nothing. Failing to react is still a reaction. Either you're dead, or you're influencing the world. And, some would argue that the dead still influence the world. Surely Jefferson and Locke still influence the world today, as do Eintstein and Planck; this says nothing for the possible influence of ghosts, spirits, apparations, souls, zombies, witches, banshees, wildebeasts, gumball trees, al Qaida, the Neoconservative Right Wing, Jesus Christ, or Luke Skywalker.
posted by Netzapper at 10:45 PM on December 17, 2005

Speaking hypothetically: What would happen if there was a person who was free of mental illness, basically intelligent, and had all normal human needs and wants with the following major exception: He is in no way influenced by cultural norms, the opinions of others, or the expectations of society in any way whatsoever.

Your question is most readily answered by looking at those in history from stable positions in hereditary aristocracies who didn't have to conform to get what they wanted, or, to a lesser extent, modern day celebrities and artists, who we expect and encourage to flout as many norms as they wish in the name of our entertainment. Think rockstars and gangster rappers who flaunt and celebrate their own lawlessness, abnormal dressing and behavior, drug use and gangsterism and/or hotel vandalism. Similarly autocrats like Nero didn't have to worry about conforming to any social norms, and were free to and did exploit others to satisfy their base needs.

On the plus side I think people who most closely resemble your description are more likely to be intellectually, scientifically or artistically creative or innovative. On the negative side, they are also more likely to abuse their immunity from norms to exploit others for selfish ends.

Some amusing modern day non-conformists are Salvador Dali (literally worshipped his wife, and eventually started selling substandard work just to subsidize her Greedy lifestyle even as she had open infidelity with the lead in Jesus Christ Superstar), L. Ron Hubbard (stated own crazy cult after much far-out occultic dabbling), Madilyn Murray O'Hare, Hunter S. Thompson, Wilhelm Reich, and Andrea Dworkin (lesbian feminist married gay husband [?!] who she abused and exploited).
posted by dgaicun at 12:35 AM on December 18, 2005

they'd probably wander round naked, mutter uninteligibly, hide in dirty corners, eat random scraps from the street, and make detailed notes in their moleskine.
posted by andrew cooke at 4:17 AM on December 18, 2005

more sources - doesn't herman hesse worry about this in some of his books (the guy in steppnwolf, for example)? also, i guess: sartre, camus.
posted by andrew cooke at 5:23 AM on December 18, 2005

How would the Ultimate Nonconformist behave, dress, eat, and live?

They'd probably look just like everyone else.

See, the secret to non-conformity is to not care about any of these things. The ultimate non-conformer's vision of self is derived purely from within. Once you don't care about how anyone else percieves your actions or manner, you are free to do what you would normally do. If you want to wear khakis and a blue button-down, feel free.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:18 AM on December 18, 2005

How would a non-conformist dress? If they had goals, they would presumably dress in whatever way would facilitate those goals within the operating environment (ie the local society), while being physically and aesthetically comfortable at the same (or whatever balance between comfort and usefulness is desired).

In other words, the difference might be subtle on the outside. They are not being influenced in their aesthetics or desires by cultural expectations, but they are studying, noting, and using the local cultural expectations as tools to use in achieving their goals.

And plenty of people do this. And to many people, doing this counts as conformity. But if this is conformity, then the only thing left that "non-conformity" can mean is being deliberately contrary, which doesn't seem like a useful or accurate meaning of "non-conformity", because the person is being controlled by social expectations as surely as if they were a conformist - in both cases, their dress is hugely influence by social expectations, but one is being influenced "reverse psychology" style.

So, it's all gray. But I would argue that a thoughtful adoption of local customs as a means to an end is not "conformity" in the sense meant here - but it's a fine line, it's very easy to assume you're choosing things for yourself when going with the flow.

Unless everyone is doing it, which according to the Onion, is not the case:

Why can't anyone tell I'm wearing this business suit ironically?
posted by -harlequin- at 3:46 PM on December 18, 2005