Nonconformity, This Submissive Conformity – Folha de S. Paulo, June 21, 1970
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
Today, those with eyes to read and ears to hear are constantly faced with the word “nonconformity.” I have tried to analyze why this rare word’s new meaning has become so popular. Driven solely by a desire to chat a little with readers, I present the results I have reached without further ado.
* * *
To understand today’s “nonconformity,” let us list some typically “nonconformist” attitudes.
There are two types or levels of “nonconformity”: radical and “moderate.” Or, if readers prefer, the “nonconformity” of “tomorrow” and that of “today.” I will only focus on the radical type, “tomorrow.” Maybe in the future, I will write about today’s diluted “nonconformity.”
The nudist, “hippie,” kidnapper, subversive, rebel—each is, in their own way, a nonconformist in today’s society. Their refusal specifically challenges the customs, styles, and principles generally accepted by those with some authority: parents, teachers, bosses, magistrates, officials, etc.
“Nonconformists” accuse all these leaders of “immobility,” claiming they want to impose total stability on young people or only tolerate changes at a frustratingly slow pace. Because of this, the “nonconformists”—who represent the future fighting against the present—believe it is their duty to force these leaders into action, much like prodding a stubborn herd of donkeys: with curses, whips, and other forms of abuse. And if the leaders don’t move quickly, submissively, and with a smile, the “nonconformists” are quick to consider another solution: a complete overthrow of leadership.
Scandal is another tactic used by “nonconformists,” not so much to undermine leaders and leadership but to push forward communities or social groups that “nonconformists” consider “stagnant.” If a luxury restaurant is frequented by a conservative and strict clientele, to break this social group’s “conformism,” it is helpful to introduce some “regulars” who eat “uninhibitedly” in their shirtsleeves, laugh loudly, swear, and so on. If people in a city still respect certain moral principles, a scandal erupting like a firecracker can easily cause a major upheaval: have a few young men and women stroll “uninhibitedly” through the central streets in rather revealing clothing. If university authorities still enjoy prestige among a college’s “silent majority,” all you have to do is dump a trash can on the dean’s venerable head (as we know, this happened recently in France), and so on.
Once the “nonconformity” offensive is triggered by criticizing or overthrowing leaders, and a wave of scandals erupts from all sides, most of the media—press, radio, and television—highlight the issue to showcase the achievements of “nonconformists.” As a result, the leaders of these acts of social defiance quickly become well-known. Everything works to boost their reputation. The applause from fervent minorities elevates them to the status of supermen in their eyes. Criticism from the “conformist” majority—often delivered with timidity, incompetence, and limited intelligence—serves as an excuse for them to portray themselves as victims and heroes. They appear as brave individuals who defy opposition from powerful figures to stand by their beliefs.
Yes, they are like supermen and heroes, not only because of all this but also because they are winners. Their extensive publicity suggests that a “nonconformist” is a pioneer who captures, embodies, and passionately proclaims the still vague and compressed but increasingly fermenting desires of massive crowds of discontented people. Tomorrow, everyone will proudly admit what a “nonconformist” declares today in a rush of revolt. Victory follows in his footsteps. The “nonconformist” is the messenger of tomorrow.
As shown, this role appeals most to ambitious types. This is even more true because the effort involved is simple. To succeed in the realm of “nonconformity,” all one needs to do is be or pretend to be eccentric. In “nonconformity” areas, work, study, application, and method have all been “superseded.” It is enough for each person to show any hint of eccentricity or inner imbalance and move on. Success won’t be far behind.
* * *
In this media-driven atmosphere, what is the role of those who refuse to play the “nonconformist” resignedly and submissively? Sanctions await them…
First, they will be viewed as grumpy, intolerant, and sour individuals. Furthermore, they will be labeled as narrow-minded, stiff, and backward. Finally, it will be said that they are dull and must be surrounded by emptiness so that gloom can envelop them like a prison. Let failure be their fate in life.
* * *
In other words, a massive wave of written and spoken propaganda floods all earthly goods onto “nonconformists.”
The same wave plunges into ridicule and anonymity any opponent who clings to logic, decency and common sense, ultimately destroying them.
If you observe closely, you’ll see that many people in the flood of “nonconformists” are carried along without much conviction or enthusiasm, driven by the hope of dazzling benefits and, above all, by the fear of harsh penalties. And you must be very noble, independent, and brave to oppose this wave.
I wonder what “nonconformity” really means for many “nonconformists.” Deep down, it’s just obedient conformity to the wave. And what’s called “conformity”? It’s often brave nonconformity fighting against that very same wave.
The terms are reversed, leading to perhaps the most bizarre paradox of our century: Generally, “nonconformists” are just dull and obedient “conformists.” The true “nonconformists” are those called “conformists” by the “in vogue” and “in the wind” crowd—those who dare to lift their heads and face the storm.
