Also, I am asking to what extent do you see yourself as a rebel? Or do you value conformity and sticking to rules? Even with law there is the question of complying with the letter or spirit of laws. How do you see this dichotomy between conformity and rebellion in your own value system and approach to life?

Time to nail down at least for the moment what is meant by "rebellion." "Rebel" and "rebellion" are nouns, but "rebellious" is an adjective. My small point here being that one can be rebellious without being either a rebel or engaged in a rebellion. Further, that in usual usage, the one who is rebellious is not usually supposed to be either a rebel or engaged in a rebellion. Rebelliousness, then, being merely a behaviour that while it may stretch does not nor is intended to rend the social fabric.

Thus society while usually regarding rebelliousness with some tenderness, rightly holds rebellion a crime and rebels criminals - depending on what exactly they do. For US polity, this was settled for all time by both Daniel Webster in his "2d Reply to Hayne" speech of 1830 wherein he refuted the Southern argument of a so-called legal secession by showing that secession to be in fact an act of rebellion that had no legal protection. And by the US Civil War, 1861-65.

So the ambiguity here is between rebelliousness and rebellion - two different things.

There are as many kinds of rebellion as there are 'establishments', traditions, authorities, beliefs and systems to rebel against. There are also many kinds of 'rebel' and many ways to be rebellious.
I'll choose several examples and explain my take on them, when I have a little more time.

Consumer culture, entertainment media and marketing have really sold the idea of The Rebel for many decades, from James Dean to rock and roll and even Trump. It's a significant trope in popular culture.

I suspect that people who self-dramatize as rebels are often the kinds of folk who call their fellows 'sheeple' and consider themselves above the ordinary. It is very important to many people to consider themselves as special or different. Perhaps a self-esteem issue?

Rebel/rebellion is an umbrella term and means many different things - from terrorism to a kid at school with a funny haircut. This can go in many directions.

But the more interesting notion of rebellion is found in what it is that people oppose or seek to be non-conformist about and why. This is fluid and more intriguing but in this era of endless subcultures and lifestyles, I'm not really sure how one rebels, except in the traditional sense of defying your own family of origin values or cultural expectations. But if you are rebelling for the sake of it, to project an image and seek to highlight how special you are compared to the dreaded mob, it seems inconsequential and tawdry.

Some friends of mine in their 20's became obsessed with Nietzsche because for them he represented a way to appear strong and have philosophical legitimacy for their general unhappiness and professed opposition to the 'mainstream' and to augment their view that people are sheep. My philosophy tutor found this amusing and said that just about every year or two there were several young males who become Nietzsche acolytes, often speaking and writing in unintentional parodies of his style.

It seems the need to be thought a rebel may be more important than the act of rebellion. Discuss. Or maybe genuine rebels do not think of themselves in these terms and are too busy getting on with it.

It is interesting to think of the different meanings of rebels and rebellion. It does involve a lot about ethics and political frameworks. I am aware that you are in America and it is likely that ideas of rebellion vary from culture to culture, as do ideas of deviance.

In some ways, in any culture it is possible to be a rebellious through mere difference from the norm, as passive or active. The stance of criminals may often be seen as rebels but even then thers may be a difference between a rebel without a cause and one with a specific aim. The criminal may be viewed very differently from the conscious political activist.

With the criminal, there is the question of how much is choice, and whether a criminal is born or made, az it may come down to genetics or socialisation, or about freely chosen behaviour.

As far as political rebels, there are also major differences. Some may challenge engage in violence, such as terrorists and others may be non- violent, such as Gandhi. A person may choose to lay down their own life in the name of a cause, such as the Suffragettes and even Socrates was a martyr for his philosophical beliefs..If anything, in the twentieth first century, there is more of an emphasis on fighting for one's rights as opposed to dying for them.

Of course, rebellion does vary so much according to the culture and tradition one belongs to. The whole idea of 'the system' and 'establishment' is fluid. After postmodernism, an understanding of cultural and moral relativism, allows for more tolerance of differences, in theory at least, because there are cultural wars, even on this forum. There may be the left and right wing, the anarchists and utopians, as well as other forms of extremists, who may cast the 'opposite' opinion as being the rebellious one, according to the who is viewed as being in power.

In a way, the question could boil down to this:

Do you object to and reject the system? Or just your status within that system?

You make an important point about consumer culture and the making of the 'rebel', and this may be where postmodernism had a major role in the glamour of the rebel, ranging from David Bowie, John Lennon, Kurt Cobain and so many others, who represent anti heroes.

The glamour of rebellion may be seductive. However, there may be a difference between those who are into the glamour of romanticism as an end and those who challenge the cultural norms, although this may be clearly obvious or subtle.

Your question of whether a person rejects a 'system' or is rebelling due to personal status is important? Equally, this applies to conformity too. It is also questionable to what extent a person may able to discern their own motivations. The biggest test may be in the light of a change of circumstances and status. Will the rebel turn 'mainstream' after being given status and will the conformist stick to the norms after social downfall?

:up: Nicely put.

I suspect that just as one person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist. So too one person's rebel may be another person's wanker.

In other words who counts as a rebel may be perspectival. And obviously people can be rebels culturally, politically, morally, aesthetically.

I wonder if it's useful to separate out deliberate dissent from the outlier who just sees the world differently and may not even be setting out to defy anything.

That's not exactly what I meant. Suppose we keep to one culture for the moment.

There may be a rigid religious establishment that dictates what everyone's moral stance should be regarding things like sex, speech and school curricula. You can expect various groups to rebel against those dictates: advocates for equal marriage, reproductive choice, freedom of the press and secular education. These 'rebels' would write letters and editorials, campaign for candidates who agree with them, fund publications that support their cause, etc. That is, they would likely keep their public activity within the bounds of existing law, while disregarding the law in their private lives, thus risking legal repercussions and public opprobrium.

There may be repressive, bullying fathers in a patriarchal society, who demand unquestioning obedience from their children and claim the right to direct the children's lives. Some children would rebel against that authority; disobey the father's orders, refuse to abide by agreements the father makes in their name (like arranged marriage or choice of career) defy the father's edicts regarding companions, mode of dress, selection of college course and leisure activities. Again, these rebellious youths are non-violent - in fact, passive in their resistance.

At a much earlier age, a child may rebel against the rules imposed on him by parents - whether those rules are reasonable or not. The form this rebellion takes is usually ineffectual tantrums and embarrassing scenes in public places.

Then, there may be a regime in place that really does oppress all or most of the people. Rebelling against that kind of regime is far more difficult and dangerous: the people need to be quite desperate before they rise up. When they do, however, it's very likely to be violent, and countered with even heavier violence from the state. Such revolutions fail and drown in blood far more often than they succeed. When they do succeed, they tend to be vengeful and blood-thirsty in their turn at power.

antidestablishmentarianism — Jack Cummins

Big word. The biggest, even, some would say.

Congratulations! You are the first person to use 'antidestablishmentarianism' on TPF. Other than in the context of vocabulary practice, you are one of the few people I have read who used the word in an ordinary sentence.

embrace conformity as opposed to rebellion — Jack Cummins

Usage varies, but some people do not count non-conformity as a form of rebellion. Conformity / non-conformity are not very far apart. One might dress in a non-conforming way without being a dissident in any significant way. On the other hand one can dress with complete conformity and be a bomb-throwing anarchist revolutionary.

I see rebellion as refusing to be an automated, robotic being. In actuality, I find it extremely difficult to 'blend in', which may be unfortunate, especially in relation to finding employment. So, I wonder to what extent is rebellion a choice or an affliction? — Jack Cummins

And the conformity enforcer at the office demands to know what right you have to avoid automated robot hood which everybody else accepts!

I am quite sympathetic to your plight. At various times I have found it difficult to blend in, successfully be part of 'the group'. In my case, political views were not the cause. The cause was a set of behaviors and personal flaws. I have been at times and in some important ways, socially incompetent. The personal became political. I gravitated toward out-groups because I fit in with them better.

So, I wonder to what extent is rebellion a choice or an affliction...

So, I am asking how do you see the idea of rebellion in relation to philosophical and political choices in life? — Jack Cummins

Undifferentiated rebelliousness against authority, for example, is probably mostly affliction. We run into somebody's authority no matter what we do.

I define 'rebellion' as material action aimed at degrading the status quo; subverting the dominant paradigm; destroying 'the system'; etc. Nonconformity doesn't cut it, not matter how outré. Anti-war demonstrations are not rebellions. A riot might be a rebellion, if it is aimed at something higher than looting the local Walmart. The Declaration of Independence wasn't rebellion; rebellion was shooting redcoats. Demanding an end to monarchy isn't rebelling. Chopping off Charles I's head was, or Charles III's would be.

Karl Marx had revolutionary ideas, but publishing them was not revolutionary. In his personal life, Uncle Karl was a slob (but Hail Karl Marx, none-the-less). Organizing the working class in London or Detroit was the significant political act.

For most of us, the opportunity to materially rebel will occur at work. In capitalist society, work is where the boss extracts value from workers. Whatever the operation, there is a lot of similarity from office to office, factory to factory, non-profit to non-profit. Engaging in union organizing is a form of rebellion; stealing time or materiel from the boss is another way. Refusal to perform demeaning tasks, especially in front of other workers, is a form of rebellion. Bosses generally do not like confrontations. They prefer workers to do what they are told to do, and shut up about it, thank you very much.

I resisted, rebelled overtly at work several times. Once or twice it had beneficial results. Mostly, though, they were glad to see me gone. covert rebellion (like stealing time for my own purposes) was more successful. I wish I had found ways to rebel more effectively. Better to be part of a pack of wolves rather than a lone-wolf who is easily picked off. Too late now.

Do you object to and reject the system? Or just your status within that system? — 0 thru 9

Insofar as "the system" determines my "status within that system" (i.e. caste) that's detrimental to me and my community, the answer is I opppse both.

I wonder to what extent is rebellion a choice or an affliction? — Jack Cummins

Substitute flourishing (or freedom) for "rebellion"...

So, I am asking how do you see the idea of rebellion in relation to philosophical and political choices in life?

I think opposition to unjust policies and laws is a moral imperative. The alternative is immoral because it allows for – permits by neglect – injustice and thereby conforms to unjust situations.

Also, I am asking to what extent do you see yourself as a rebel? — Jack Cummins

To the extent I am the precariate who are systemically discriminated against and exploited, in solidarity I lucidly revolt, as Camus says, wherever and whenever I can.

Or do you value conformity and sticking to rules?

I reject "conformity" to any "rules" which unjustly discriminate against and/or violently exploit – immiserate – individuals and communities.

How do you see this dichotomy between conformity and rebellion in your own value system and approach to life?

My moral "approach to life" is, in part, that of a negative consequentialist and so I tend to conform to norms, or systems, to the extent they enact harm-injustice reduction and rebel against those norms, or systems, which (by policy or happenstance) fail to reduce harm-injustice.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_consequentialism

antidestablishmentarianism — Jack Cummins

Do you mean 'antiestablishmentarianism' or 'antidisestablishmentarianism'? I presume the former, since the latter means being against the idea of disestablishment. The former could also be 'disestablishmentarianism', the ideological principle of disestablishment.

These terms seem too absolute, too ideologistic. Am I always against the establishment, against the establishment in principle, or am I merely against those aspects of the establishment which entrench classism, racism. sexism. privelege and so on?

Actually, the reason why I introduced the term 'antidestablishmentarian' was because it was a word made in 'Scrabble' by the facilitator of the creative writing group, as a prompt. We had some discussion about what it meant and whether it was about conformity, or the opposite.

It does seem bound up with ideologies, and is another ism, which can be generalised stances, of putting things into boxes, especially for labelling them as right or wrong. This happens so much in ideas of political correctness and black and white thinking.

It is likely that the idea of rebellion for it's own sake without thought of morality and ends would be problematic. Freedom and flourishing are a goal of life for most people and the attempts to curb freedom are often the source of legitimate ideas of rebellion or protest.

The idea of human rights involves an understanding of protesting about lack of freedom. Law itself is a way of finding a reasoned approach for thinking about objections to injustice. The idea of the social contract is a basis for justice but there are often situations which involve the abuse of power. In that sense, the notion of rebellion or protest is a starting point for keeping the idea of freedom.or flourishing as a fluid area for change in connection with the variables of life.

I am glad that you appreciate the problematic area of conformity as being about fitting in rather than as a form of protest. There is a need for protest as a fight against injustice but the problem of conformity is about to what extent a person is able to be automated as opposed to unique. I once was in a work situation where I was in told that I simply needed to be almost identical to the person who I was replacing. I saw that as problematic because I was a different individual.

I have found that there is often an attempt to expect people to be so robotic. The example I gave above about the person I was replacing is often glossed over with the idea of transferability of skills. However, it does often mean a lack of value of individual uniqueness and individual voice, especially in corporate organisations. People are seen as numbers rather than the embracing of difference in abilities and in disposition.

Some people seem to be more able to be able to conform naturally. Certainly, I am not a blender and even when I wore a school uniform I always looked untidy. It is not just about rules but about roles too. It may come down to socialisation to some extent.

The idea of authority does play a critical factor and authoritarianism. The nature of authoritarianism involves parents and other significant figures. Often, religious beliefs protect the power of authority. Religious ideas were bound up with the rise of the patriarchy. Often religious ideas are a way of mystifying the social order.

People are socialised with ideological assumptions as a subtext, and often the questioning of assumptions, and the social order is seen as dangerous. The whole nature of political philosophy involves looking behind the assumptions of political structures and ideological assumptions. This questioning in itself may be the beginning of rebellion.

The idea of authority does play a critical factor and authoritarianism. — Jack Cummins

It's consolidation of power in the [few] hands of designated agents. The strucuture may be decreed by religious dogma, caste distinction, military might or economic status. In each case, those who have much get more - and it is their mission to get more, until they control everything - and those "who have not, it will be taken away, even the little that they hath". Jesus, the biggest rebel in alternate history, knew whereof he spake.

The whole nature of political philosophy involves looking behind the assumptions of political structures and ideological assumptions. This questioning in itself may be the beginning of rebellion. — Jack Cummins

Indeed, it must be. Such questioning begins at an early age, when the child feels that the rules and constraints imposed on him are unfair or when she realizes that adults tell lies. If satisfactory answers are not forthcoming, and especially if the child is punished for asking, the questioning grows into rebellion.

Your question of whether a person rejects a 'system' or is rebelling due to personal status is important? Equally, this applies to conformity too. It is also questionable to what extent a person may able to discern their own motivations. The biggest test may be in the light of a change of circumstances and status. Will the rebel turn 'mainstream' after being given status and will the conformist stick to the norms after social downfall? — Jack Cummins

Yes. It’s completely natural and reflexive to object and squirm when put into a difficult / unfair situation.
And also understandable to work to escape those dire circumstances.

Some kind of conformity (at least outward or superficial) is necessary to survive.
We pick our battles wisely, and can become quietly subversive to help right some wrongs.
The bravest of us may not worry about becoming a martyr, but not over something trivial.

A glimpse at the big picture helps: you don’t suffer alone.
An open heart helps one see the need for ethics: you can’t save everyone, but you can help someone.
With this wisdom and compassion, one can see a glimpse of a plan against the system…
There is strength in unity and in acting that ‘we are all in this together’ because tyrants want to divide and conquer their victims; what they fear most is a unified resistance.
They want us fighting each other instead of them.

A powerful example is the two characters in The Shawshank Redemption.
Red and Andy each kept their head down, and played along with the rules.
But they were always gnawing away underneath at the Institution, which was crushing those underneath it like a huge obtuse boulder.
And importantly, they kept their humanity and didn’t become oppressive to others.
When they finally found freedom, the viewer feels the warmth and beauty of that sandy beach which washes away the cold horrors they experienced.

Insofar as "the system" determines my "status within that system" (i.e. caste) that's detrimental to me and my community, the answer is I opppse both. — 180 Proof

:up: :100:

Sorry, but I don't understand your reply to my post. Maybe that's because I wasn't clear enough answering your questions. I don't see your "dichotomy", Jack: we conform to norms of justice (i.e. reducing injustice) to the extent we rebel in solidarity against manifestly unjust situations or systems. Assuming, however, this conception is either incoherent and/or too inpractical, what else could be the basis – enabling-constraint – for political freedom in today's 'post-Enlightenment' world? :chin:

I am sorry that my reply seemed confusing. It is not that I disagree with your argument about fighting injustice. It is just where the personal comes into it. Moral ideas may be part of it but ego plays a role too, but in variable ways. There is even attachment to ideas as being part of identity. That comes in with patriotic conformity, political and religious allegiances. Political views and angles involve one's personal circumstances and valued ideas.

Human beings aren't completely rational, although it may be important to strive for a rational basis of ethical concern and justice. Some of it may come down to the moral system which one has been socialised into, without questioning. Also, it is possible to rebel in the form of criminality, especially if one is in a marginalised position and feels unable to achieve goals through adhering to social norms.

People who are in the most dire predicaments may have more reason to rebel. Those who are disadvantaged or treated badly may have difficulty seeing the principles behind rules. Also, children seeing lying and hypocrisy may have a less clear sense of moral integrity.

The idea of the Gospel 'figure' of Jesus, and I say figure because it is narrative, was definitely a rebel as he saw the hollow aspects of adherence to rules, such as the behaviour of the Pharisees. Even though in Christendom there may be a return to hollow morality as behaviour of 'the herd', this is really not in accordance with the centre of Christian ethics. In some ways, he may have been more in line with Nietzsche's transvaluation of values and mere conformity to social rules and conventions. It is also unlikely that he would have been a capitalist, especially as he taught that , 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven'.

It seems your emphasis is on psychosociological conditions, or impacts, of "conformity and rebellion" rather than on their philosophical (e.g. moral, political) significance. My mistake for not getting that from the OP.

It was not my intention to focus on the psychosocial aspects of rebellion exclusively. In the outpost I mentioned Camus' idea of metaphysical rebellion which I have often found to be an interesting idea. One possibility is suicide, although it may be not be the most creative form of rebellion. Another form of metaphysical rebellion would be that of transhumanism because it is about going beyond the limits of biology.

Generally, I am interested in the philosophy of existentialism, which was developed in the tradition of romanticism. The existentialists were interested in the way in which individuals can create their own chosen destinies rather than being slaves to tradition and authorities. Rebellion, in its creative form may be about authenticity and finding one's 'true' self, rather than conformity to social conventions. This may have been the basis for bohemianism and artistic freedom of expression.

Another aspect may be Foucalt's criticism of ideas about ideas of 'normality' and power structures. This gave rise to the deconstruction of ideas of power and ideas of 'normality', which was important in sociological thinking and the understanding of the nature of the social construction of reality. Rebellion may involve inversions of social conventions and social change.

It was not my intention to focus on the psychosocial aspects of rebellion exclusively. — Jack Cummins

No, you didn't but the psychosocial aspects of rebellion or obedience are very important. Many who chafe under authority are unable to take off their sabots and throw them into the gears, so to speak. This isn't a fault; it's just reality. Over time, non-conformists develop capacity to resist, to man the ramparts, so to speak.

Resistance and rebellion require justification. One has to keep one's mind clear about why one is making the sacrifices required to challenge authority. resisting the system, rebelling... because the system will strike back. Challenging the boss will. as a rule, result in one's firing. Getting fired (especially too often) may result in dire poverty (like, unhoused homelessness). Usually not, but good competent people do end up on the street, even if they didn't rebel.

The existentialists were interested in the way in which individuals can create their own chosen destinies rather than being slaves to tradition and authorities.... This may have been the basis for bohemianism and artistic freedom of expression. — Jack Cummins

I'm in favor of 'chosen destinies' over being a slave to tradition and authority. Where, when, and whether one can manage that depends on just how many "chosen destinies" society is willing to tolerate. I grew up in a time when American society was reasonably tolerant -- the '60s and '70. Not so tolerant that rebels were given medals, certainly. Challenging the authority of various institutions was expensive.

But it was possible. Over time it has become more difficult to to challenge the system, and more difficult to bear the costs. In addition to society changing, I was getting too old to put up with the downsides of a precarious existence -- so I settled for as much security as I could eke out.

At some point, rebels retire. They don't become conservatives because they are now living in a high rise elderly apartment. That is the story of the best rebel I knew: he had become homeless and was living in some unidentified space, when somebody hooked him up with social services. Plus he was finally old enough to qualify for senior housing and was literally penniless -- general assistance covered minimal living expenses. He lived the last 7 years in decent housing, finally getting medical care and enough food. He remained a rebel till the end.

MIlgram's study of obedience to authority was particularly striking in showing how people were willing to give electric shocks when ordered to do so. The blind following of orders may have so much dangers for the capabilities for human beings to be led to atrocities by following leaders, such as Nazism. This is also of significance for potential totalitarian regimes.

The philosophy of consciousness as an illusion and determinism also gives rise to a belief that there is no choice. The contrast to lack of free choice is critical thinking. Lack of consciously chosen ideas and subversity may be a juxtaposition. It is likely that each person's course of development of these aspects of thought run a slightly different course in life. The rebel may retire and the conformist may seek alternative ways of thinking and, it may be philosophy which enables this navigation in the best possible ways in seeing beyond ideologies and subtexts beyond generalisations and assumptions about the status quo, life and the world.

Must we resort to Professor Milgram's shocking experiment to illustrate obedience? It isn't that Milgram has been invalidated. His experiment has been replicated with pretty much the same results.

It's just that blind obedience in some common settings is a virtue. We expect people to obey traffic laws--preferably without question. Drive on the correct side of the road below the speed limit, while obeying all the other rules of the road. Failure to do so results in death often enough.

People in ordinary work experiences generally obey the authority figures who supervise them. If they do not, it isn't an actor on the other side of the glass who will be punished. It's the disobedient worker. Quite often it's important that the workers follow instructions exactly. The books won't balance if accounting workers make up their own rules. Steel won't be strong if foundry workers don't follow the formula.

I have not been in a Milgram experiment. I don't know, for sure, how I would respond. My guess is the participants saw no alternative. There was probably no "heads up" alert that they were going to be asked to do something highly questionable. There was probably no discussion in a group before individuals agreed. They walked in to the lab, alone, and were told by an academic agent that they should push the button, again/.

The Milgram experiment reveals the risks of operating in life without a constituency (i.e., a circle of friends or associates who provide feedback on right-behavior). Left to our own devices without a reference group, any one of us can go off the deep end of ethical choices. I was once brought up short by a co-worker who correctly saw my research plan as unethical. She was right -- it was, but before her confrontation I was ready to do it. (It was psychologically invasive, didn't provide for consent, etc.)

BTW, you started yet another good discussion here.

From what I have seen, in England, obedience to authority, and authoritarianism is becoming the norm. Rebels as protestors, even with an important cause for justice, are viewed as troublemakers in the news. So much is about following policies, with little question.

The twentieth century had so much activism for the quest for liberation for women, black people and LGBTIQ people. Bertrand Russell and Peter Singer, as philosophers, were active in the causes of peace and justice. It seems that there has been a backlash in general, with those who question authorities and power being accused of being 'woke'.

It may be about swings backwards and forwards, and an overall despondency about the problem of climate change as such an immense problem. The idea that human beings have 'messed up' may curb the ethos of rebellion and lead to a wish for leaders and politicians to be able to provide solutions. Despondency may destroy the positive aspects of the spirit of rebellion.