Social Acceptance or Individual Identity

[Tal]

Okay so I'm sure no one here wants to feel lonely, be ridiculed or be rejected, but IF you had a choice, would you choose to fit in with the majority, living and socialising as you perceive them to do, or would you aim to be different - to be the rebel who lives by his own standards, but perhaps suffers some rejection and isolation as a result.

Try and forget about any limitations social anciety/shyness impose on you...assume they don't play a significant part, whichever option you choose.

Obviously what I'm trying to see here is how many people value individual identity above social acceptance. (Both, although ideal, isn't an option )


Personally I'd go for being 'a lone hunter'.

[Paulinus]

I'd prefer the individual identity option.

The problem is in having confidence to project your individual identity whatever that is. If you are different to the majority but have the confidence to express that, then your chances increase of finding like minded people who also think in the same way as you.

Without any shyness I cant see too many problems with having an individual identitity, as your not going to worry so much about what people think of you.

[Samantha]

I'm confusing myself answering this question.

In this scenario am I someone who has different standards to society? I ask this because you imply that with the social acceptance option you won't be living by your own standards.

If that were the case I would choose to be on the 'outside' because I guess I believe in being 'true to yourself'..... *gag* that sounds cheesy

In principal, I believe society to be more important than individuality though. After all we are social animals and it is society which allows for individuality. Man wouldn't have much time to be 'unique' by listening to obscure music and wearing scruffy clothes if he had to go out all day hunting for his food, evading predators which are faster, stronger more venomous than he, etc etc.

[wagnerr]

I think i'd rather be part of the pack. Then i'd feel like part of a team effort, and not be excluded all the time.

[zaab]

Though I think even the most iconoclastic rebels still conform to societal norms to a large extent, I think I'd much rather be the rebel who tries to find his own way. I don't mind being shunned as long as there are a few people who will understand and accept me. I see a lot to be desired in the way a person is expected to conduct his life and I'd rather build my own life the way I want it. Easier said than done, I admit.

[Samantha]

zaab70 said:

I don't mind being shunned as long as there are a few people who will understand and accept me.

But what if nobody did understand and accept you? Are you prepared to be completely alone for your whole life?

Are there any compromises the lone wolves would be prepared to make? For instance would you give up society just because you want to dye your hair blue?

Although I'm not sure if this is what Tal means lol.

[zaab]

papdancer said:

zaab70 said:

I don't mind being shunned as long as there are a few people who will understand and accept me.

But what if nobody did understand and accept you? Are you prepared to be completely alone for your whole life?

Are there any compromises the lone wolves would be prepared to make? For instance would you give up society just because you want to dye your hair blue?

Although I'm not sure if this is what Tal means lol.

Yeah, I agree, there are definitely limits to how far one should take their rebellion. Thoreau, even when he was spending solitary time at Walden Pond, was reported to have visitors and wasn't too far from town regardless. A rebel on the order of the unibomber, however, was taking things a bit too far. Thoreau would be my model in this case ;D

[Tal]

@nergh

In this scenario am I someone who has different standards to society? I ask this because you imply that with the social acceptance option you won't be living by your own standards.

Yes, I would assume that if you had significantly differing standards from society, you would find it difficult to be socially accepted. It's an imperfect generalisation of course, but its good enough for this poll.

In principal, I believe society to be more important than individuality though. After all we are social animals and it is society which allows for individuality. Man wouldn't have much time to be 'unique' by listening to obscure music and wearing scruffy clothes if he had to go out all day hunting for his food, evading predators which are faster, stronger more venomous than he, etc etc.

That's an excellent point. The question does assume you still live in a society with time on your hands to define your own personality in the Rousseauian way.

But what if nobody did understand and accept you? Are you prepared to be completely alone for your whole life?

Are there any compromises the lone wolves would be prepared to make? For instance would you give up society just because you want to dye your hair blue?

Although I'm not sure if this is what Tal means lol.

Well compromises would almost certainly have to be made. The defining factor between the two options is whether you make so many compromises that you become part of the pack and lose your individuality/identity.

It would be interesting if there was some kind of test which forced people to make decisions on how individual they would be...might find that some people would prefer to be among the crowd rather than standing on their own. lol

[wagnerr]

talisman said:

@nergh

Well compromises would almost certainly have to be made. The defining factor between the two options is whether you make so many compromises that you become part of the pack and lose your individuality/identity.

It would be interesting if there was some kind of test which forced people to make decisions on how individual they would be...might find that some people would prefer to be among the crowd rather than standing on their own. lol

I think a lot of people prefer to think of themselves as bascially normal within their common frame of reference, but to also have the freedom to display a mark of individuality or two.

For example, i know there are some Star Trekkies here. Undoubtedly, you know the of the fictional armada of spaceships and communal entities known as the Borg.

These Borg act as one community, with no makrs of individuality at all. They even think with a commonality, and with a common thought origin. They are all the same, and seek only to benefit the group. This makes them immensely frightful to behold as the humans fight them.

What would be the point of such existance? It is one thing to work to benefit the group, but if an individual working for the group's benefit recieves no interests at all for themselves, what point is there to his existance?

Another analogy; Ants. Ants are the picture perfect example of Communism on earth. Ants work for the group, and they have virutally no identifying features among individual drones. They all work for the queen, who though she may be the head of the mound, she is also stuck in the communal beneficiary frame of thought.

Both examples demonstrate enormous efficiency and production, but in doing so, they elliminate all traces of individual joy or pleasure, or individual benefit.

Now i'm not saying we humans are capable of this kind of group dynamic behavior. But as individuals, each with their minds and emotions, we all must make sacrifices to the whole of the group, in order that we recieve some communal benefit. On the other hand, this does not mean we devote our entire existance to the benefits of the group.

[nameless]

i ould like to be an individual but be more socially accepted than what i am at the moment!

i would like to be one of the pack and fit in wherever i go but i really value individuality!

[lily]

i'm too much of a loner to be a member of a pack i think. or it would have happened by now. no use even thinking about it. i kinda like the idea when i'm feeling lonely, but it would have to be a pack of very tolerant, unique individuals. hey, how about you guys? ;D

[Samantha]

talisman said:

The defining factor between the two options is whether you make so many compromises that you become part of the pack and lose your individuality/identity.

Hmm..... ok thanks Tal, I guess you cleared some things up for me. It's still too general for me though so can I change my vote to null/void? There is no way I could make such a decision unless maybe my life depended upon it and even then I wouldn't know which way I'd vote. It just depends on too many factors. I'm a specifics kind of a guy. I really don't like principals or idealism.

I've never fitted into groups naturally but can do quite easily... although not for long. Just nod, agree and repeat as necessary. But this isn't about me as I am right? It's about who I choose to be? Well I've never been that big on individuality because I believe everyone already is. No one can stop a person thinking, feeling or dreaming what they want. The only real issue for me therefore is being able to physically live out your differences. What differences matter so much as to be an outcast for? I could understand say if you were gay but if the choice is to be alone and never have a partner or not be alone and never have a partner then I would pick the latter.

Ok no I'll stick with my original choice lol. I've always been a loner but if I had a choice I would rather be a pack animal. You can live a physical and intellectual life without others but it's very baron emotionally. It's emotions that make you feel alive. I believe in balance. Since that is not an option, to be part of a pack would be the next most balanced option I feel. Also as cheesy as it sounds I would choose the pack if only for love. Oh and fun. It's hard to have real genuine fun on your own. Yes you can be happy, do things you enjoy but it's not the same. Not laugh out loud, belly ache fun.

Anyway apologies for the incoherant waffling and rambling I had about 2 hours sleep and can't think straight. I have no idea how "to define your own personality in the Rousseauian way" differs from normal but I guess I'm with Bertrand Russell: "Man is not a solitary animal, and so long as social life survives, self-realization cannot be the supreme principal of ethics."

Nergh I need coffee

[Tal]

@ Nergh

It is a difficult decision. I could certainly live with very few people accepting me, but to live with absolutely no one accepting me might prove impossible.

As for Rousseau, what you said sounded a little bit like part of his theory. He basically claims man starts off as a solitary creature hunting, mating and sheltering from the elements. However various factors and Human characteristics lead him into forming collectives, which result in each of us having lesiure time to define our personalities and social concepts (e.g. language). It then all goes into resource distribution, economics, inequality etc etc and then ends up suggesting we're all enslaved by society and social classes. However my main point is that you both implied society is a requirement for individuality - prior to society the possibility and need for an individual personality or rebellious behaviour wouldn't exist.

So you may well be a philosopher at heart lol

[pnoopiepnats]

We are all part of the pack maybe more than we realize. We follow the rules of our society for the most part.

Although I would enjoy sitting on top of my desk and skipping to meetings, I don't because it isn't socially accepted to do so.

The only people that really act without regards to social norms are small children and mentally ill people.

[Richard Cunningham]

pnoopiepnats said:

We are all part of the pack maybe more than we realize. We follow the rules of our society for the most part.

Although I would enjoy sitting on top of my desk and skipping to meetings, I don't because it isn't socially accepted to do so.

The only people that really act without regards to social norms are small children and mentally ill people.

Which am I again?