None of these are non conformity: All of them are fashionable signals of officially approved affluent pseudo-nonconformity. For example, the vast majority of people who claim to vegetarians, are not, but claim to vegetarians for the status.
And it simply absurd to suggest that Australian champagne socialists disapprove of hiring domestic help They are always one upping each other on how little housework they do.
Almost everything’s fashionable to someone, somewhere. You can start with a certain in-group and non-conform by deciding to eat meat. You can non-conform out of the gay community by deciding you’re actually straight.
The issue of conformity arose in this thread from SarahC’s comment:
Honestly, I think the cluster of tech-savvy, young, smart-but-nonconformist types is really winning at the goal of being productive while happy. Not everybody makes it; but I’ve seen a lot of people have lives more satisfying than their parents ever could. People who’ve broken the conventional wisdom that you have to put up with a lot of bullshit because “that’s life.” Mainly, because instead of asking “What is the Thing To Do?” they’ve got the hang of asking “What is the best thing I could be doing?”
I think this really applies to me. My assessment of my life is that I’m much happier because of these moments where I’ve exercised even a little bit of courage in the face of social pressure. It wasn’t a huge amount of courage, but it was non-zero—which is more than many people are willing to do. I do believe that being utterly craven in the face of social opprobrium is a common failure mode, and it’s an area where rationality pays dividends.
For example, the vast majority of people who claim to vegetarians, are not, but claim to vegetarians for the status.
Got a cite for that? Vegetarianism might be a questionable indicator of nonconformity, but I’d be much more willing to believe that vegetarianism’s become common enough in a broad spectrum of subcultures to be disqualified as such than that a vast, or even a simple, majority of professed vegetarians aren’t actual vegetarians. Perhaps modulo some wiggle room for culturally mandated meat-eating, like Thanksgiving turkeys in the US.
Now that I think about it, actually, it’s a non sequitur either way. The hypocrisy/sincere profession ratio of a feature doesn’t tell us much of anything about how acceptable it is in the mainstream: I’d expect many more people to claim to have Mafia ties than do in fact, but membership in a criminal fraternity is almost by definition nonconformist!
By the most naive rational appraisal, eating n% less meat than usual is fully n% as good—say, for suffering animals—as being a pure vegetarian. However, the social consequences of being a pure vegetarian seem to be entirely different than those of simply eating less meat. (I agree with sam0345 that those social consequences are largely positive.) It’s interesting to think about why.
Also, a question about the “not vegetarians” thing. I’ll grant you ahead of time that a great many vegetarians/vegans aren’t doing it for any particularly rational reason. E.g., they think it’s healthier (it’s not), they think meat’s gross (subjective—but they’re wrong anyway :p), they exaggerate the environmental case, etc. But I have a hard time believing they actually fail to eat little to no meat.
What are you counting as “failing to be vegetarian”? If they eat meat once a month? Once a week? Once a day? I’d say that someone that eats meat once a day is not vegetarian. But I’d also say it’s reasonable for someone who eats meat even once a week to call themselves vegetarian. Are you claiming that there are lots of people who call themselves vegetarian but eat almost as much meat as “normal” people?
Even if vegetarianism were entirely status neutral, you need to communicate to people what you want to be eating. If you tell everyone “okay, I eat meat once a week”, then chances are high two people per week are going to say “great, here’s some meat”. So you won’t even be able to maintain this very liberal ratio.
I sometimes eat certain types of seafood, such as oysters or prawns, because I don’t believe this is actually cruel. An oyster is not a pig. It doesn’t have much of a nervous system to speak of. So why should I avoid eating them, just to meet someone’s definition?
Similarly, if someone can’t live healthily on a strictly vegetarian diet, but needs to eat some meat, why do they need to snap back to “no special diet” status? If they still think the meat industry is largely cruel, they can probably meet their health requirements by eating only a little meat. Why should this person not call themselves a vegetarian?
I personally eat very little meat. I don’t consider myself to be vegetarian.
I have never met a self-professed vegetarian that I’ve seen to eat meat. Not that this means there aren’t any… but my experience suggest to me that meat-eating vegetarians are not “the majority”
I can, however, conceive that some vegans might say that non-vegan vegetarians are not “really” vegetarian.
I am also aware of a certain movement, sprung from the vegetarian community, to spruik the “eat less meat” philosophy.
One of these may be where sam0345 is hearing about non-vegetarian vegetarians...
I don’t follow? Even if vegetarianism is highly negative starus, the word’s useful as a way to communicate your pre-commitments. Again, imagine the person who eats meat once a week attending several events per week where they will be expected to eat meat. If they don’t call themselves vegetarian, they won’t be able to keep their commitment. This says nothing about how much status they are gaining or losing, or how much they are ‘conforming’.
None of these are non conformity: All of them are fashionable signals of officially approved affluent pseudo-nonconformity. For example, the vast majority of people who claim to vegetarians, are not, but claim to vegetarians for the status.
And it simply absurd to suggest that Australian champagne socialists disapprove of hiring domestic help They are always one upping each other on how little housework they do.
Almost everything’s fashionable to someone, somewhere. You can start with a certain in-group and non-conform by deciding to eat meat. You can non-conform out of the gay community by deciding you’re actually straight.
The issue of conformity arose in this thread from SarahC’s comment:
I think this really applies to me. My assessment of my life is that I’m much happier because of these moments where I’ve exercised even a little bit of courage in the face of social pressure. It wasn’t a huge amount of courage, but it was non-zero—which is more than many people are willing to do. I do believe that being utterly craven in the face of social opprobrium is a common failure mode, and it’s an area where rationality pays dividends.
Got a cite for that? Vegetarianism might be a questionable indicator of nonconformity, but I’d be much more willing to believe that vegetarianism’s become common enough in a broad spectrum of subcultures to be disqualified as such than that a vast, or even a simple, majority of professed vegetarians aren’t actual vegetarians. Perhaps modulo some wiggle room for culturally mandated meat-eating, like Thanksgiving turkeys in the US.
Now that I think about it, actually, it’s a non sequitur either way. The hypocrisy/sincere profession ratio of a feature doesn’t tell us much of anything about how acceptable it is in the mainstream: I’d expect many more people to claim to have Mafia ties than do in fact, but membership in a criminal fraternity is almost by definition nonconformist!
Merely a personal observation. I do however have a cite for the proposition that vegan is conformity, and omnivory a sinful deviation.
Citing a source that aims for humor rather than accuracy is a lot more helpful if you’re aiming for flippancy rather than credibility.
By the most naive rational appraisal, eating n% less meat than usual is fully n% as good—say, for suffering animals—as being a pure vegetarian. However, the social consequences of being a pure vegetarian seem to be entirely different than those of simply eating less meat. (I agree with sam0345 that those social consequences are largely positive.) It’s interesting to think about why.
Also, a question about the “not vegetarians” thing. I’ll grant you ahead of time that a great many vegetarians/vegans aren’t doing it for any particularly rational reason. E.g., they think it’s healthier (it’s not), they think meat’s gross (subjective—but they’re wrong anyway :p), they exaggerate the environmental case, etc. But I have a hard time believing they actually fail to eat little to no meat.
What are you counting as “failing to be vegetarian”? If they eat meat once a month? Once a week? Once a day? I’d say that someone that eats meat once a day is not vegetarian. But I’d also say it’s reasonable for someone who eats meat even once a week to call themselves vegetarian. Are you claiming that there are lots of people who call themselves vegetarian but eat almost as much meat as “normal” people?
Even if vegetarianism were entirely status neutral, you need to communicate to people what you want to be eating. If you tell everyone “okay, I eat meat once a week”, then chances are high two people per week are going to say “great, here’s some meat”. So you won’t even be able to maintain this very liberal ratio.
I sometimes eat certain types of seafood, such as oysters or prawns, because I don’t believe this is actually cruel. An oyster is not a pig. It doesn’t have much of a nervous system to speak of. So why should I avoid eating them, just to meet someone’s definition?
Similarly, if someone can’t live healthily on a strictly vegetarian diet, but needs to eat some meat, why do they need to snap back to “no special diet” status? If they still think the meat industry is largely cruel, they can probably meet their health requirements by eating only a little meat. Why should this person not call themselves a vegetarian?
I personally eat very little meat. I don’t consider myself to be vegetarian.
I have never met a self-professed vegetarian that I’ve seen to eat meat. Not that this means there aren’t any… but my experience suggest to me that meat-eating vegetarians are not “the majority”
I can, however, conceive that some vegans might say that non-vegan vegetarians are not “really” vegetarian.
I am also aware of a certain movement, sprung from the vegetarian community, to spruik the “eat less meat” philosophy.
One of these may be where sam0345 is hearing about non-vegetarian vegetarians...
Of course this person can call himself a vegetarian. But that he is inclined to do so would indicate that vegetarianism is not non conformity.
I don’t follow? Even if vegetarianism is highly negative starus, the word’s useful as a way to communicate your pre-commitments. Again, imagine the person who eats meat once a week attending several events per week where they will be expected to eat meat. If they don’t call themselves vegetarian, they won’t be able to keep their commitment. This says nothing about how much status they are gaining or losing, or how much they are ‘conforming’.