🌟 11th Grade English Fall SBA (Argumentative: Conformity)

Psychology Today Staff, "Conformity" (pages 2-3)

Conformity is the tendency for an individual to align their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors with those of the people around them. Conformity can take the form of overt social pressure or subtler, unconscious influence. Regardless of its form, it can be a powerful force—able to change how large groups behave, to start or end conflicts, and much more.

Why We Conform As much as most people like to think of themselves as unique individuals, in reality, humans are social beings—and for the sake of group cohesion, people are evolutionarily driven to fit in. That usually means copying the actions of others, looking to the group when deciding how to think or behave, or doing what is "expected" based on widely accepted (if often unspoken) social norms.

Though it's often derided, conformity isn't necessarily a malevolent force. At its best, conformity offers a sense of belonging and group identity and can encourage people to adhere to moral standards. At its worst, though, it can bring out a person's darkest impulses and even be used to justify—and carry out—large-scale atrocities.

Why do I care so much about fitting in? The need to belong is deeply wired into human biology. In evolutionary terms, going against one's group could be costly, and social cohesion was critical for the group's overall success. Today, the desire for acceptance—or the drive to "fit in"—remains a basic human instinct for the vast majority of people.

Is conformity good or bad? Conformity is not inherently positive or negative. When conformity occurs because of fear, concern for one's social standing, or has dangerous consequences, it may be seen as negative. However, conformity that protects the overall well-being of the group—mutually deciding to respect private property, for instance—can help societies succeed.

What are the reasons people follow the crowd? One reason is called social proof; it's common to assume that if most other people are doing something, it must be correct. A desire for social harmony is another major driver of conformity. Going along with what others are doing reduces the possibility of disagreements that could lead to one group member being ostracized.

Is conformity part of human nature? It appears to be. Conformity is a universal feature across societies, leading researchers to suspect that it gave us an evolutionary advantage. But despite its evolutionary roots, conformity is not universally beneficial and can prove dangerous—either to individuals or to the group itself—when its resulting norms and practices are never questioned.

Does everyone conform? Generally, yes; though individuals prioritize fitting in to varying degrees, virtually everyone who interacts with society conforms to it in some way. This may manifest in their appearance, behavior, or the social norms they choose to follow. While some people strive to be "non-conformist," conformity is a fact of life for the vast majority of humankind.

When can conformity be good for society? A healthy amount of conformity can lead to increased social harmony, on both interpersonal and societal levels. For instance, a society in which all members collectively agree to conform to certain driving-related behaviors—driving on the right side of the road, perhaps, or yielding to pedestrians—will experience fewer traffic accidents than a society without such agreements.

Matthew Wice and Shai Davidai, "Conforming for the Greater Good: How Motives Affect Judgments of Conformity" (pages 4-6)

In the film, Dead Poets Society, Robin Williams plays an unorthodox teacher who praises the virtues of non-conformity to his students. Dramatically standing on top of his desk during class (and imploring his students to do the same), Williams cries out that he does so "...to remind myself that we must constantly look at things in a different way."

As the movie progresses, the viewers are left with no choice but to root for this iconoclast as he challenges the stodgy norms of an elite prep school and inspires his students to "seize the day" and blaze their own trails. Yet, as the students form an increasingly cohesive group, they end up conforming toward each other (albeit in a non-traditional manner), leading to a climactic moment in which they pressure each other to stand on their desks and recite a farewell poem to their beloved teacher ("O Captain! My Captain!").

Dead Poets Society is a striking example of the ambivalence toward conformity that is a central theme of American culture. We abhor conformity, yet we end up conforming to our chosen groups of non-conformists. Why is this so? Why do we revere non-conformity one moment and applaud conformity the next?

Our research suggests that how we feel about conformity depends critically on why we think that people conform in the first place. In a series of experiments, we asked participants to evaluate instances of conformity that were drawn from their own lives, as well as those presented in hypothetical scenarios.

We found that when people view conformity as reflecting self-focused intentions (for example, conforming to gain the approval of others), they tend to view conformists as having weaker character than when the conformists are motivated by other-oriented motives, such as a concern for the other members of the group. We call this type of conformity "benevolent conformity" because it is done out of genuine regard toward one's fellow group members.

Imagine, for instance, that you are working on a group project. Even though you might disagree with the group about some aspects of the project, you may still care about maintaining the harmony within the group and, rather than say anything, would simply play along. Or, you may not want to hurt anyone's feelings and decide to simply go with the flow. Those who conformed for these benevolent motives were also viewed as warmer, more competent, and even more authentic (despite having acted in a way that conflicted with their true beliefs and attitudes) than those who conformed out of self-interest.

What about non-conformity? Do we also judge non-conformists based on whether their motives were benevolent? To investigate this question, we presented participants with several versions of a hypothetical scenario involving a student senate vote at a university. The protagonist in this scenario holds a different view than the rest of the senate members, and can therefore be viewed as a non-conformist.

Participants read that this person ends up either voting in line with the group (conformity) or differently from the rest of the group (non-conformity). On top of varying conformity versus non-conformity, each of these outcomes also varied in terms of whether the protagonist's motives were self-focused or benevolent. Did he conform because he wanted to be liked, or because he cared about the harmony within the group? Alternatively, did he refuse to yield to group pressure because he cared about asserting his individuality, or because he worried about the group making the wrong decisions?

The findings were clear. Conforming because he cared about the group seemed to gain the student "extra points" in participants' eyes in a way that conforming because he cared about being liked didn't. In contrast to judgments of conformity, we found that participants viewed the protagonist's non-conformity as similarly positive, regardless of whether or not it was rooted in self-focused or benevolent motives. These results seem to reflect a bias in which those who resist the influence of others are given the benefit of the doubt, whereas those who bend to the will of others are not.

No matter how we feel about conformity, it is a ubiquitous aspect of social life. We are often required to subvert our own needs and fall in line with the group. This is especially true during the current pandemic we are dealing with, when conforming to health guidelines (in spite of how one may personally feel about them) becomes a literal matter of life and death.

Paying closer attention to the role of conformity adds nuance to how we understand others' social behaviors. People can appreciate the rugged individualists who challenge the status quo while still acknowledging the merit of coming together and showing up for their groups. Lauding those who have the courage to stand apart from the crowd and admiring those who self-sacrifice for the benefit of the group are not mutually exclusive.

Just as Williams' character urged his students to view life from different perspectives, we too can view conformity from multiple vantage points. Doing so reveals that conformity is neither good nor bad. Rather, as is the case with so many complex social behaviors, intentions are key. Realizing this allows us to be more discerning in our social judgments, so that we can encourage those acts of conformity that are truly benevolent and serve the greater good.

Yarek Guy, "Embracing Individualism: The Power of Personal Freedom and Expression" (pages 7-9)

In today’s interconnected world, the concept of individualism holds immense significance, advocating for personal autonomy, freedom of thought, and the expression of unique identities. Individualism stands in contrast to collectivism, emphasizing the rights and independence of the individual over the priorities of the collective. In this article, I will share my insights on the power that lies in being an individualist, why you should EMBRACE INDIVIDUALISM, and, of course, the challenges I’ve faced in embracing this philosophy. So, let’s dive into it.

The Power of Individualism: At the core of individualism lies the belief in personal autonomy—the freedom for individuals to make their own choices, pursue their passions, and shape their destinies. This autonomy extends beyond mere decision-making; it encompasses the right to express one’s beliefs, values, and creativity without undue influence or coercion. By empowering individuals to chart their own paths, individualism fosters a sense of ownership and responsibility for one’s life journey.

What does Darwin, Einstein, Beethoven, and Emily Dickinson have in common? They’re all individualist! Individualism serves as a catalyst for innovation and progress, driving creativity and critical thinking. When individuals are encouraged to think independently and challenge conventional norms(as great people do), they often generate groundbreaking ideas, solutions, and advancements across various fields. Einstein captured this perfectly when he said: "It is important for the common good to foster individuality: for only the individual can produce the new ideas which the community needs for its continuous improvement and requirements—indeed, to avoid sterility and petrification."

The diversity of perspectives that individualism cultivates leads to a richer tapestry of innovations, pushing societies forward.

Why You Should Embrace individualism: Embracing individualism would be immensely beneficial. In such a philosophy with personal autonomy at the centre, one will have the luxury of freedom of thought and expression. This is the luxury that all great innovators, composers, novelists, and others of the past embraced and created their most profound work that has reshaped the world. In a world where you can make easy money simply by imitating others, embracing individualism will inevitably enable you to stand apart from the rest. An American proverb captures this best, “Small men imitate and great men originate”.

Imitating everyone may bring success, but that’s ephemeral and short-lived. Being authentic, however, may take longer to gain traction, but the fruits will last for an eternity. Take a look at the Mona Lisa that Leonardo da Vinci created, he spend 10 years refining and perfecting it, and now, it’s the greatest painting in the world. Einstein took 10 years to formulate his general theory of relativity, and that theory has become a cornerstone for modern society. All of this is to say that embracing one’s individuality is crucial when creating original work. Embracing individualism will, you’ll reap ample success in the long run than imitating orders for ephemeral success. History remembers those who stand out from the crowd who embraced their uniqueness, not those who blend in with the crowd until their individuality becomes non-existent.

Challenges I faced For embracing individualism: I’ve been called an egoist for not supporting the collective. Embracing individualism, doesn’t come without its challenges because you know you’re going against the collective, which means you’re creating your own path. You’re not walking the path that’s often walked. You know, you’re gonna be looked upon. I’ve encountered persons who have said, “Oh, I am egotistical, and I’m behaving superior to them”.

Others have said that “to become successful in the modern era, it’s easier to imitate others to get ahead”. Other remarks like, “it such a waste to want to express my own uniqueness”, but I don’t allow their opinions to affect me regardless because I know what I want. I have no interest in being like everyone else and no one can change that about me. I’m only interested in embracing my own uniqueness and sharing that uniqueness with the world. If the world accepts it, that’s ok, if the world doesn’t accept it, again that’s ok, but I will not and I refuse to be like everyone else in order to gain recognition or to gain attention from others. No, I will be myself, and I will unapologetically embrace my individuality.

To conclude, embracing the individualism philosophy has immense benefits. But it does have drawbacks as well. In a world where we are, society tries to make us like everyone else embracing your own uniqueness, which is a superpower that we all should embrace. It takes courage to embrace one’s individualism but it’s suppress it is the greatest insult to ourselves.

Jenara Nerenberg, "How to Be a Constructive Dissenter" (pages 10-12)

So much social science research has focused on conformity, the way that individuals adjust their behavior to match those around them, and this tendency holds important implications for our world today. Studies find that tendencies toward conformity begin young, with researchers theorizing that it initially occurs as a natural part of a child’s development. But aspects of conformity continue into adulthood, where individuals can potentially lose a sense of themselves by adapting their attitudes, beliefs, thoughts, and opinions to match their peer groups.

Conformity is certainly at work in today’s politics in the U.S. Divided between two large political parties, people face increasing pressure to adopt the viewpoints of the left or the right, which leaves out a range of nuanced ideas, opinions, and beliefs that don’t fit neatly into one single box. And people feel afraid to speak openly and challenge others within their own party, even if done in healthy, productive ways. “Self-silencing” is when a person stays quiet about a truth due to fear or in order to keep the peace and avoid rocking the boat, but that tendency has far-reaching consequences, both socially and politically, and can even lead to widespread depression.

[...] Self-silencing plays a role, but what I discovered is that there are surprising numbers of people choosing healthy, positive, constructive dissent—yet they are misunderstood and labeled as “reactionaries.” In reality, their dissent is a testimony to their deep care for others, and their dedication can serve as a model for healthy disagreement and encouraging people to self-examine and communicate from a place of critical thinking and empowerment.

The power of dissent Jolanda Jetten is a Dutch social psychologist at the University of Queensland in Australia who studies social identity and group dynamics. She says that researchers often mistakenly conceptualize dissent as lack of loyalty, by “deviants” behaving outside accepted social norms. In reality, dissenting can be in service of helping groups realize where they have strayed from their core values.

[...] As Stanford professor Benoit Monin and his colleagues point out, rebelling against prevailing morals poses distinct threats to groups, and so dissenters are not always welcome. Sometimes, their rebellion is seen as criticism of the group, or their actions make people in the group question their assumptions, or the rebels confront the group in their own complicity with immoral acts—all of which can lead to existential crises, resentment, and defensiveness.

But often, what these rebels and dissenters are really trying to do is help their communities reassess their behaviors, narratives, and belief systems in an attempt to repair connection, group solidarity, and unity.

“Group members may dissent because they care for the group and are concerned about the course of action that other group members are taking,” writes Jetten with her coauthor Matthew Hornsey. “Dissent is then motivated by an attempt to change group norms for the better, a phenomenon that has been variously described as ‘constructive deviance’ or ‘constructive patriotism.’”

One could say that many of the dissenting commentators emerging across social media today—on X and on podcasts and YouTube—speak up because they care. They dissent because they care. And they all have a stake in the future of democracy and polarization.

[...] “Dissenting minorities exert influence on the group as a whole because they force the majority to think outside the box,” they add. Another term for a dissenter is a positive deviant or a moral rebel, defined by Monin as “someone who stands up and takes a conspicuous stance in opposition to a norm, expectation, or convention that they perceive to be immoral.”

But one of the reasons we don’t always look kindly on dissenters is because we don’t always connect the dots on the long-term benefits of their actions. “The influence of minorities is indirect, delayed, and not always visible—when these group members are influential, change is often not attributed to their influence,” write Jetten and Hornsey.

How to be a constructive deviant There is certainly an incentive for welcoming dissenters, however. “By tolerating a deviant or dissenter, group members can show that they act in accordance with their beliefs and values, and this strengthens the social fabric of the group,” write Jetten and Hornsey. Perhaps we can start to think of dissenters as cheerleaders for humanity?

With these benefits in mind, Jetten and Hornsey argue that “some groups might create informal roles within their ranks that free people up to engage in dissent.” I haven’t seen much of this as an adult, though I recall schoolteachers encouraging dissent during classroom discussions. “An example is the role of court jesters in the Middle Ages who, perhaps because of their marginal and nonthreatening position, were the only ones who were licensed to openly raise unpleasant truths in the presence of the king or queen,” they write. “A modern equivalent is the role of the devil’s advocate, whose purpose is to question the group’s functioning in order to understand the organization’s weaknesses.”

[...] Allowing diverse voices to emerge, whether it’s yours or a friend’s, family member’s, or colleague’s, means learning how to get comfortable with the initial clash of opinions. The polarization around us today requires us to embrace nuanced conversations and the complexity of opinions and diversity of thought that are present among all human beings.

In this era of tension and mistrust, a clear way to crack through the polarization is by voicing the nuances of your own life experiences. We do a disservice to one another by conforming and staying quiet, hiding our truths. In order to evolve our conversations with one another and develop our own tolerance and thinking abilities, we have to be willing to say things that others disagree with or that might make some people uncomfortable. Dissent and rebellion don’t emerge from silence, but rather from speaking up.