A long time ago I was hunting for a word and while “conformity” had occurred to me, it didn’t feel quite accurate. I don’t know if Pierce Butler’s persuasion in the comments percolated these million years or if a different aeon’s perspective was responsible, but I do think it’s the word now.
When we talk about the different flavors of oppression such as misogyny, transphobia, etc, there are a few ways to describe them: like white supremacy, in terms of what you want to promote; like racism, in terms of the category by which you are discriminating; or like anti-blackness/misogynoir/etc, in terms of the specific target of oppression. Conformity is the first one – a description of what you want to promote, the implied target of the oppression being nonconformists.
I don’t have anything deep to say about it tonight, but I’m just feeling it, turning it over in my head. I’ve seen a group of nice people, mostly women, having a genial social gathering, and realized they were relentlessly conformist about it. I realized this was practiced. One of the ways AFAB people are oppressed under patriarchy is being told that they are only acceptable if they behave in certain ways – a stronger expectation of conformity than is heaped on the AMAB (not that anyone is exempt, of course).
This leads to constant seeking of reinforcement that whatever you’re doing is acceptable, normal, or valid. Validation, I guess. I see this as a key component of what I call “amirite ladies” culture. “We all think the same thing about this issue, right?” “Oh yeah, sure.” Girl who isn’t quite on that page in the corner: “I mean I dunno, is it OK I maybe don’t, if it’s not too much, i’m sorry, I’ll go away if you want me too!” Generous conformists in that moment: “It’s OK because we agree in this other way, you are valid.” …and everyone gets along.
It’s not a terrible way of being, but it does cause people who are further outside of the clique to self-select their own exclusion. Like everyone is fanning out about Stranger Things or Space Shooters, and the person who never understood fan culture sighs and stands in the shadows, hands in their pockets. Go kick rocks, weirdo.
I’m coming to understand a good sign someone may be a high-functioning person on the autism spectrum is that constant feeling of being excluded or alienated from the people around you. I can’t say I’m at all educated on the subject, but it keeps coming up in random discourse and personal anecdotes I’m seeing.
Anyhow, nonmutual types, especially (but not exclusively) those who were smashed with the AFAB hammer and feel eternally invalidated: Props.
–
The only way I can interpret this is you saying that trans women are less expected to conform than trans men, and surely that can’t be right.
you’re certainly welcome to that take but i’m not hosting that debate in my comments from either side so nobody’s allowed to comment further on it after what you just said here.
i don’t think it’s an invalid point of view so i’ll allow it to be expressed, and not even contest it, but now that it’s been expressed, that’s done. further commenters be advised. this ain’t tumblr and it ain’t the thunderdome. no fights.
to be more explicit, nobody comment on this to defend my honor, nor to support dauphni, nor to try to square the positions in a spirit of harmony (edited to add this bc i know some of you love to do that). that dispute can stand unresolved as far as i’m concerned.
Why does Dauphni indicate that AFAB applies only to transgendered people?
don’t sweat it. if you’d like to comment on this post, maybe give some thoughts on the topic of conformity. or tell me what’s in your cup tonight.
I think I disagree with your stated position that a person who feels excluded or left out is a good sign that they are high-functioning autistics. Unless you are also making a claim that everyone falls somewhere on the spectrum of autism, including people who we currently designate as not being on the spectrum. I’ve actually heard that argument, and to a certain extent it makes sense. But I don’t think that’s what you are claiming here.
It sounds like you are claiming that conformity is the natural human psychological state and non-conformity is an aberration.
I don’t think it’s that simple. In most, and I dare say all, social interactions human being establish what I would call a pecking order. I know there are other terms, like status or hierarchy, but I think pecking order captures the idea best. It’s a dominant/submissive relationship, and in a group it generates a social hierarchy. Now, humans being a bit more complex than other creatures psychologically, we can belong to multiple social hierarchies at one time. That is, within some groups person A may be at the top of the pecking order, while in other groups person A is near the bottom. Again, among humans who recognize this hierarchy exists, even within a single group the pecking order may change depending on the situation. In a team of specialists, one of the things they should be trained on is to cede leadership to the specialist who’s knowledge applies. E.g. a team of doctors in a surgery will not only plan on specific tasks being done by specific people in the operating room, but if is crisis occurs the specialist on that crisis will give the directions. If there is a problem with the anesthesia, the anesthesiologist is the person to correct it, not the operating surgeon. At least that the theory, someone with experience in operating rooms may correct my impression of what should happen compared with what really happens.
But in a social group there will be a lead person, which may change over time, and a pecking order among the other members. And I prefer pecking order because it describes what happens. Usually, without even being conscious of it, the individuals will establish this pecking order, and often there will be continual jockeying for position within it.
This is what results in conformity. Once the hierarchy is formed there are advantages to keep within the boundaries the group originally sets. Both physical and mental boundaries. Any person going going outside of those boundaries challenging the hierarchy, and will lose status within it. The flip side is also true, any person parroting the ideas or activities which are acceptable to the social group can increase their status.
This is also where validation comes into the picture. If we say that validation occurs when someone within the social group is recognized, and receives praise for their words/actions, it is pretty clear that the easiest way to get that validation is to conform to the norms of the group. There is a lot of young adult literature which, in essence, has a protagonist which is cast out of the social group and either then forms their own or becomes the dominant member of the group because their ideas are vindicated. It’s kind of the bedrock of young adult literature.
So, who is the person standing in the corner, not interacting? That person is probably not considered a member of that social group at all. They are othered. That person still has a few options. They can isolate one or two members of the social group and encourage them to sponsor them for inclusion. They can push their way in. They can try to form their own. They can decide that specific social group isn’t one they are interested in. They can tell themselves that they are superior to the people in that social group. They can feel miserable that they are excluded. These options, and others, are non-exclusive, someone can feel superior and miserable at the same time.
And, of course, because a single person may be a member of many different social groups, they may be high-ranking in one group but low-ranking (or excluded) in another.
Now to get back to people on the autism spectrum. I’m not an expert, but what I have experienced from interactions with people who are high-functioning autistics (by their own statements), is that they often do have difficulty understanding social dynamics. So they may be more likely to be excluded because they don’t know how to conform. However, as counter example, I have a relative who says little and seems content to be silent and a wallflower at parties. He has told me that when his wife dragged him to social gatherings he had two questions he would ask, “How are the [insert local sports team] doing?”, and “How is your family doing?”. Then he would just listen because it seems that most people will talk for hours about those subjects without noticing that the listener isn’t saying much.
I’ll again say that this social hierarchy develops without much in the way of thought. The people who do understand that the hierarchy exists and figure out how to manipulate it can, and often do, become leaders in that hierarchy. Some people even have a talent for manipulation without recognizing that is what they are doing. Generally people do not think, they parrot what they have been told by others and instinctively try to conform to norms of the society and the smaller groups they belong too. It’s certainly easier than considering the practical and moral implications of every action we take.
I submit that noticing someone at a party is a wallflower isn’t a good test to determine that they are a high-functioning individual on the autism spectrum. It’s a lot more complex than that, and I think it’s more related to the social structures groups form than any individual trait.
Now, I think I’m going to spend a few hours making a new birdbath. I’ve been meaning to for a few weeks, I just haven’t gotten around to it. But today seems like a good day for it.