Conformity as a religion

Post Reply New Topic

Anyone up for discussing it?

I don't mean theistic religion, I mean it more in the sense that communism/Stalinism is a religion or how some people might see overkill environmentalism as religion.

The thing that just reminded me of this one was being in martial arts class today. We were finished in the changing room, and I realized I'd taken my socks off and I gave a "Oh sh**" reaction and put them back on. Got asked about it and told the other guys subtlely that I didn't want to walk on the mats without socks on, that several months ago I had to see the doctor and I noticed that the mats had a distinctive smell that told me exactly where I picked it up.

And trust me - I get it. There are certain things you can say to 99.9999 percent of the people out there and for at least five minutes you'll get ripped on, anything you say in further detail will be hyperbolized and you'll essentially make yourself a social piniata for that much time going forward, if they like you it'll stop, if they don't they may carry with them the notion that you're a bumbling idiot or have no social common sense.

The trouble for me - often enough I just care too much about giving warning on something to where, I'll know what's coming if I do, I'll say it as if to tell them that I trust them enough to have a laugh and be done with it, I don't get offended because that reaction is prescribed to everyone breathing as THE only appropriate response to certain things. Its essentially fear of the common denominator. The common denominator make fun of things like this because they're dumb, and brighter people make fun of it out of Stockholm Syndrom brought on them by the common denominator and their own struggles with them. Add competition and need for social structure for its own sake to the mix and you have a system that most people never break free of before they've drank their first senior coffee at McDonald and by that time at least half still haven't.

What I'm getting at - there's conformity for the sake of order, ie. respect to an environment or atmosphere, respect to rule of law or other people's rights, that's a thing I'd call 'practical' conformity. Then, there's what I consider 'religious' conformity. Think of how in late highschool and early college you had social-grammar nazi's who'd critique every little minute detail of what someone said for how well it held up to group script or how much it failed; sadly as well, the kind of aspie I was, by the time I was 25 I was halfway that bad myself. In college I actually had a lot of really beautiful girls interested who I should have talked to but I never did because I was such a social protocol nut and so intent on looking 'cool' that I was either going to have a chance to talk to them from my position of power or I'd take the loss completely; I took the loss each and every time. As for the conversation I had in class today that I mentioned above - you can tell though, I've come along way in fighting my heresy-against-conformity phobia.

Also a message to the rural liberals here that I made yesterday and I'll make it in another thread - this isn't conservatism. I'm sure you get to feel like liberals are nearly saints when wrapped in country bumpkins who are all about nuking the middle east and against politicians over color but, if you ever find the chance to move to a liberal city and really get a sense of what the populace is like you find out that this kind of stupidity knows no theistic orientation, nor does it know any political orientation. Come to my area and you'll find to your chagrin that liberals will be this way as fast as conservatives. Really its a social structure thing, my guess (from the group who enslaves everyone else by their damage creation) is that its from a neurological configuration of small minds that grieves just as many NT's as it does us.

Still, I'd love your input and I'd love to get a sense of what you guys think on this topic.

I don't think the essence of (state) communism being religious in nature is simply a matter of conformity. It's that it follows some of the same underlying principles. It promises salvation for mankind. It is clearly messianic. It sees itself as the true faith. It regards 'apostacy' as betrayal. It has its pantheon, martyrs, messiahs, and saints. Holy books, catechism, theological disputes, the whole enchilada is there in a secular form.

Mostly its in the sense of its messianic promise of human salvation. Lenin was clearly the messiah, Marx the holy father. Lenin's tomb - a sacred place if ever there was one - even had pilgrims! And still does!

What's the difference between individual spiritualism, and organized religion? You'll find practically everything you could name in that difference, in communism.

This post had nothing to do with communism, aside from suggesting that - like it - conformity is a non-theistic religion. I'm sorry. I didn't quote anything else after that because its going on the same misread of the OP.

I'm just saying I don't think we can go from an analysis of state communism as being similar to organized religion and just extend it to all forms of conformity. It's just conformity. Conformity is an element of organized religion but not the other way around.

As I'm trying to grasp this I'll toss out the idea of zealous allegiance to a sports team. For example I live in Michigan on the southern border. If I'm in Toledo or Columbus, Ohio and I mention where I'm from I may find myself part of a college sport rivalry.

In fact one might bring up a recent victory for the Buckeyes and I won't have any idea what they're talking about or care. Yet, it does seem very import to them in a way.

Is this kind of what the OP is referring to?

I said communism is a secular religion. I said conformity is a secular religion. I never said communism is conformity.

I know the Michigan/Buckeye rivalry since I have lots of friends in Columbus who are brash Buckeye fans but the analogy to the thread is eluding me, sorry.

Hmm. Well. That is true, since one isn't a synonym for the other. But one could say the same about religion as conformity or vice-versa.

Any chance we'll ever talk about the OP?

I'm perhaps too focused on the title, which isn't the essence of the OP, maybe. It's thrown off my understanding - maybe religion is a red herring here? Would it work if the word "religion" was dropped and tribalism substituted?

Last edited by edgewaters on 30 Jun 2012, 8:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Guess I didn't quite follow the OP I'll read it again.

You need a better concept than "secular religion". I think that the word "religion" is completely misleading. A better way to phrase all of this would be that religion has its source in something else, in a specific aspect of human experience, which is also the source of communism/conformity/whatever else. I don't really what is the right name for that concept. I am not learned enough in sociology or anthropology, but I am sure some social scientist out there has defined appropriate concepts for that.

About grammar-nazism, it is not a question of conformity, but the opposite: a question of distinction. By writing correctly or well, you distinguish yourself and project a higher image. It is a bit like appearance or clothing. Using a colloquial dialect will appear low-class and uneducated, just like a tainted tee-shirt with old jeans, using standard English (be it British or American) will show higher level of education, like a business suit, and someone using "whither" in informal speech will look bizarre and dated, like wearing a Belle Époque dress at a barbecue. In the same way, correcting other people is showing that one is better than the other, like mentionning the inadequacy of someone else's garments (or genuine concern for the other's language, and thus social perception, like a parent telling their child to "dress properly"). It is certainly arrogant, but it is still about distinction: "You used 'then' instead of 'than', therefore I am more intelligent than you are"; "Your suit is ugly, so I have good taste and you don't."

Both the business suit and the T-shirt and jeans are conformity, only to different things. Any sort of conformity is necessarily a sort of distinction, where there are multiple options of conformity. The fellow in T-shirt and jeans is distinct from the fellow in the business suit, just as much as vice-versa. The fact that one is easier doesn't change that - the fact of conformity is not negated by greater effort at conformity!

This sort of exceptionalism reflects the tribal attitudes of the social classes.

Fair. What I mean though is dogma that exists because it exists, no real facts to back it up.


What I really meant was conformity-naziism. People who nick pick social presentation and performance in the same way grammar nazi's pick at grammar. I looked at the OP and my specific word usage could have been slightly misleading so I'm glad to clear that much up.

Granted.

However, the T-shirt/jeans combo might not be a choice in the same way the business suit is. It might be necessity for someone who can't afford anything else, just as some people actually cannot use grammatically correct language, because they do not know the rules of the standard language.

(P.S. I wear T-shirts and jeans exclusively and am the worst kind of grammatical pedant, at least in French.)

I believe the word you are looking for is procrusteanism.

Last edited by edgewaters on 01 Jul 2012, 12:40 am, edited 1 time in total.