Challenging Social Conventions

Social conventions are considered to be the "norm". And norms are the values a certain society holds. This week-end, my husband and I saw two plays that challenged two values in our society; appearance, and conventional ideas.

"Fat Pig" was a humorous jab at our society's value of "being fit". Being overweight, Helen had had numerous encounters of being the brunt of society's "convention". She coped with the ostericism by learning to "make fun of herself", and to be bluntly forthright about another's thoughts about her "fatness".

Helen had not had a chance at love, as she had been rejected before anyone took the time to know the person behind the "facade", until she met "Ben". The play ended with the sacrifice of Helen, on the altars of society's conventional wisdom; one cannot succeed with a fat wife!

The other play, "The Trial of Barach Spinoza" was a true rendition of a Jewish philosopher, who challenged the conventional wisdom of Judiasm, as well as the status quo in a Dutch Reformed Amersterdam in the 1600's.

Spinoza was painted as a radically committed person who was willing to "die" for his faith. But, his faith was not one of conventional wisdom, and his death would not be a physical, but social one.

Society, as an entity itself, maintains its conventions with rules that guard and guide the "faithful". Society has much to loose if it conventions do not maintain their power, as society would end in chaos and be destroyed. The "gatekeepers" of tradition are those that help to maintain these conventions.

The individual, as a person, is lost within these systems, if these systems are too constrictive.

Helen's "rebuke" was not a trial, like Spinoza's, but it was nevertherless, a painful realization that she was to be an outcast to a life of being loved and valued, in her own right.

Spinoza's freethought threatened the status quo. And the choice for Spinoza was inevitably a painful realization that he would not be the "choir boy" within his "Jewish tradition". But, being the "choir boy" was never Spinoza's goal in the first place. Spinoza's friend, who betrayed him to the "authorities", was seeking to be a "choir boy", at least at first. Spinoza's intellectual honesty and commitment to be "true to himself" was the threat to society's traditional view.

One has to ask whether the values that society affirms are values that are truly "righteous"? Or are these conventional values "self affirming rights" to discriminate against another? And if one discriminates, then is there a conscious choice about the reasons why one discriminates?

People, for the most part, are not self-reflective enough to consider whether the value of a human being is to be put above social convention. Social convention is "an easy way out" of an uncomfortable challenge to one's social values.

I haven't come to my conclusions about all the why's or why not's, but I will be thinking about it this week.

Let's Get Ugly

Ugly is only understood by some standard. And standards are defined by whatever "standard" the culture agrees upon. This is a cultural "norm". And cultural norms help to maintain social order. Social order is good for society's functioning, so that people can live in "peace".

Our nation of laws provide the standards that represent good leadership, as leaders should obey the law. And the law protects us from "invasions" of different kinds; invasions of privacy (identity), invasions of property (trespassing), for example. We are a people that believe in "equality under law". Therefore, we "trust" that others will respect the law and not trespass, but acknowledge and accept the social contract.

Some, though use the law to their advantage. These are ugly people. They lack character because they do invade, but in a "legal way". I do not respect, nor should anyone else respect such leadership.

Those who do evil should be held accountable by any means available, as they should learn that these invasions are never to be overlooked, but learned from. Power does not affirm others in lawlessness.

But, just as those who use the law for their advantage, those who revolutionize also do. These are the ones who have made history in challenging the status quo. The revolutionary understand that there is a higher principle that must be maintained, otherwise others will suffer under invasions of the ugly. These are the rights of individual liberties that protect invasions of personhood.

A gentler and kinder way, is the way of reform. Reformers work within the system to make it change, without upsetting the whole social order.

One must decide whether the ugly is worth fighting, forsaking, or furthering in a different way. The choice and decision must be a personal commitment of value and vision, as one will pay a cost, whichever way one chooses to change evil into good.

Freedom of Speech, Moral Order and the Challenge to Change

Our Constitution guaruntees each American the right to the freedom of speech. We experience our freedom with the diverse views that are represented in our news media and positions of power. While most choose to identify with their particular "color" of view, some choose to go across the borders of conformity to wisely discern how to challenge the prevailing view, so that it can be expanded. Do we do this as private citizens? Do we choose to watch, or buy something that is antithetical to our view, so that we can really learn what the issues are really about, instead of stereotyping and dismissing the other side of the story.

When we talk about the moral order of the social structures, whether government or family, we must challenge ourselves in our free society to not limit our views to a certain position, but challenge ourselves to discriminate, and discern, what and why something is important or of value. This is seeking an education of oneself and can only enlarge our world, expand our understanding and heighten and hone our reason to defend a certain conviction.

We have experienced many changes in our society. These changes have not come about without resistance from the status quo. Power structures which are based on matienance of what is, do not seek to change positions, no matter the costs. Change is costly, but especially to power. Change challenges us to consider something we haven't considered. Change can be uncomfortable, especially to those who do not want to learn or grow. Change for change's sake is also not wise, unless it is warranted for the right purposes. And purposes themselves, are not about moral or immoral, but, sometimes just a priority of value.