Individuality versus Conformity – Benefits and Difficulties

In short, individuality is the act of expressing one's own beliefs, preferences and lifestyles, whilst conformity is the act of accepting and complying with social norms and laws. The former makes individuals stand out from the masses; the latter makes them appear adapted, blending-in and less noticeable. This indicates that the majority acts mostly conform. We may want to discuss this.

We also may want to discuss what generates and defines individuality or conformity and what allows or hinders it. When to choose between the two? What are the costs and benefits of any of these strategies?

Let’s look into the nature and cultural aspects of both concepts and how those have changed historically over time. What are the variables which influence an individualistic or confirm society?

The Benefits and Disadvantages of Individuality
It appears that our current culture favours individuality over conformity, at least as a common ideal or theoretical upheld value. People who live a largely individualistic and unique lifestyle are often (not always) admired for their social courage and strength. So, what are the benefits?

Firstly, it is believed that humans with a great deal of individuality lead a happier, more prosperous and “authentic” life. They are seen as being free of the shackles of conformity to social rules and regulations, which are not their own, and chose their actions according to their own set of values. (However, we may want to discuss how we form values and where they come from.)

Individuality is also seen as the base of diversity, which in our society is also celebrated as an advantage. Diversity of thought is indeed a good basis for innovation and cultural development. Whilst the benefits are potentially great, not every unique idea or ideology will lead to positive change; it could equally create unique and costly failure. We may want to discuss this.

Similarly, individuality benefits creativity and the diversity of skills and abilities. This can be beneficial for the individual and the society at large.

We need to ask the question: “How well would a society do, which follows only individualistic principles?”. Does individuality allow collectivist cultures to flourish where characteristics like being self-sacrificing, dependable, generous and helpful to others are of greater importance? With other words, does individualism favours competition rather than cooperation?

The Benefits and Disadvantages of Conformity
Conformity, in opposition to Individuality, carries a negative connotation. In our current culture, conformity is often associated with intellectual and emotional weakness and regarded as a result of social suppression and submissiveness. Indeed, psychological studies have confirmed that people with lower self-esteem and education confirm easier and quicker. Still, humans often confirm for fear of social rejection and anticipated disadvantages regardless of their condition.

However, conformity can be seen as a form of collective Model Learning, where behaviour, actions, strategies and values are simply copied from others. Model Learning enables the acquisition of behaviour without having to make costly trial and error experiences oneself. For this reason, behaviour that has been rewarded rather than punished will be acquired more readily via this copying process. Punished behaviour will be avoided.

We may want to discuss in how far collective actions and societal strategies would be possible without conformity. Would we be able to work and even live together without it? Would there be any team players? Could prosocial, individual scarifies for the greater good of a collectivist culture be seen as conforming weakness rather than idealistic strategy?

Some Philosophers’ Views: (source Internet)
John Locke: (1632 – 1704) English Philosopher & Physician
Famous for his social contract theory, arguing that individuals possess natural rights like life, liberty, and property, which should be protected by government.

John Stuart Mill: (1806-1873) English Philosopher & Economist
Strongly advocated for individual liberty and the "harm principle," stating that individuals should be free to act as they please as long as they do not harm others.

Adam Smith: (1723 – 1790) Scottish Economist & Philosopher
Considered a key figure in classical economics, promoting the idea of free markets where individuals acting in their self-interest contribute to the overall economic well-being.

Friedrich Nietzsche: (1844 – 1900) German Philosopher
Emphasised the concept of the "Übermensch" (the superman), encouraging individuals to strive for self-actualisation and reject societal norms that restrict their potential.

Herbert Spencer: (1820 –1903) English Polymath
Associated with Social Darwinism, believing that societies evolve through competition between individuals, promoting a form of "survival of the fittest".