That we have become slaves to conformity

Con's Case 1. The idea that "society has progressed" is a red herring in this debate. Remember, we are arguing about conformity not whether society has changed. Con associates modern times with non-conformity and the past with conformity. I disagree. The goalposts have simply shifted. Con rightly states "today we have a different set of values" and those values clearly still entail social constructs and norms. Con notes that we realize that discrimination is not acceptable, and in many groups today that holds true. Much of what was wrong in the past is considered acceptable today, and vice-versa. It works both ways, as I could just as easily evoke the idea that children should be able to get married or polygamy and get that same level of outcry today that was used in your example about gay marriage. In conclusion, Con's argument that today is somehow "non-conformist" seems arbitrary. We conform to our own standards. 2. Con speaks in very broad concepts here: "[Today] people are developing their personalities. .. to be is who they actually are, not what they want to be. " I don't know what this means or to what extent this is different from the past. Certainly, mainstream society is more accepting of certain views than others, but there are still taboos. Is a racist more "free" to develop his personality today? How about a social conservative on a liberal college campus? Con is practicing a selective bias here. Con's argument is a little confusing here. He talks about how being an individual is "trendy" and that we follow this "trend. " Is Con just substituting "trends" for "conforming? " It would seem so. I would really like Con to clarify this in the next round. Were people not individuals 40 years ago? How about 400? Which year did people start becoming individuals rather than brain dead conformists? Pro's Case: 1. Psychological experimentation has repeatedly confirmed the power of conformity. Two prominent experiments in this field have been the Asch and the Milgram experiment. Both experiments demonstrated the power that a group consensus or authority figure can hold over an individual. The Asch experiment, for example, asked groups questions about the lengths of lines and then asked for judgments to be made. The control group gave only one incorrect answer of 35, while the experimental (peer pressure) group led test subjects to answer over 1/3 of the questions incorrectly. Follow up experiments confirmed this effect, namely - that group pressure can largely sway individual judgment. The force was greatest when there was a large number of individuals that strongly voiced the incorrect opinion [1]. The Milgram experiment, similarly, showed how individuals were able to suppress their own moral judgments when faced with an authority figure. In this experiment, the "teachers" (test subjects) were instructed to shock "learners" (actually recordings, no one got hurt) as a method of teaching them word associations. When an incorrect answer was given, the learner received a shock administered by the teacher. The levels of shock were gradually increased, and the learners recordings were heard by the teacher so he could hear the pain that was inflicted. Shockingly, 65% of the participants reached the maximum voltage level of 450 volts after being coaxed by the scientist [2]. The learners stopped reacting after large bouts of screams indicating that they were unconscious if not dead. 2. Social norms exist, and there are consequences for violating them. Despite Con's attempt to frame the modern day as an era of individuality, there are still very basic social norms that govern human behavior. We operate inside a social network and implicitly abide by social norms that are realized at an early age. Remember, by saying "slave" we are claiming that these social norms exists and exert a clear, strong effect on the individual. The violation of some social norms leads to arrest - having sex with a minor, shoplifting, urinating on lawns - while others just entail social consequences. These social norms are inescapable and govern everyone's behavior, unless perhaps you live alone on top of a mountain. All members of society are binded by these norms. How about if I try to rebel? Lets say tomorrow I wake up and threw on some black clothing and eyeliner. Unfortunately, that look is already a little slice of society that has been claimed by the Goths, and in doing so I am conforming to their group standards. I could make the exact same point with hippies, punks, or jocks - name the high school stereotype. Now, if I really wanted to get creative I could go outside with only underwear on my head but this is too much of a violation of norms and I would be arrested. My refusal to conform would lead society to step in and directly stop my act. However, there is a middle ground between arrest and normality where social consequences occur that serve as an incentive or disincentive for individuals to follow a given social norm. In conclusion, these norms are an inescapable part of society that play a large role in governing our individual behavior. Additionally, it is much harder than one thinks to truly be a "non-conformist" given the multitude and diversity of groups that comprise a society, and the consequences for true violations of social norms are often direct and may even carry a sentence. The social norms that a society holds bind its members like a social glue in a clear and powerful sense, for better or for worse. [1] . http://www.experiment-resources.com... [2] . http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu...