In “On Liberty” JS Mill suggests that conformity hurts both individuals and the societies
they live in. He argues that it leads to an ineffective political rule because when a majority public
opinion is formed, any nonconformist ideology or person is cast aside and loses its influence to
change the society it is a part of, even if that influence might be beneficial. This thought can also
be applied to our government today. In our case there is not one majority but a bi-polar spectrum
that has stayed consistent for over 100 years, and the social pressure is to identify with one party
or the other. Mill argues that when social pressure is upheld strongly by a particular society,
those who try to shift the norm can be seen as “wild” or …show more content…
Would
this lead to universal innovation? Or would no one commit to one set standard long enough to
achieve any progress? This is where I disagree with Mill because I don’t think that cosmopolitan
eccentricity can sustain itself.
The most difficult aspect to look at when considering social pressures is to determine
which is more important- the stability of a civilization or the well being and freedom of the
individual? I don’t believe you can have one without, at some level, suppressing the other. It is a
question that is very similar to trying to define freedom. At what point does allowing an
individual start to impact the freedom of another? On social pressure, at what point does
conformity hinder the ability to be truly one’s self? When Freud talks about the limitations put
on pleasure by social pressure it may not necessarily be a bad thing. There are people who get
pleasure out of raping young men, but I don’t believe they should indulge in that particular
pleasure and I believe the standard of sexual consent is a benefit to society. Also, by having that
standard in place, it may reduce the temptations of evil and furthermore reinforce the ideas of
individual
they live in. He argues that it leads to an ineffective political rule because when a majority public
opinion is formed, any nonconformist ideology or person is cast aside and loses its influence to
change the society it is a part of, even if that influence might be beneficial. This thought can also
be applied to our government today. In our case there is not one majority but a bi-polar spectrum
that has stayed consistent for over 100 years, and the social pressure is to identify with one party
or the other. Mill argues that when social pressure is upheld strongly by a particular society,
those who try to shift the norm can be seen as “wild” or …show more content…
Would
this lead to universal innovation? Or would no one commit to one set standard long enough to
achieve any progress? This is where I disagree with Mill because I don’t think that cosmopolitan
eccentricity can sustain itself.
The most difficult aspect to look at when considering social pressures is to determine
which is more important- the stability of a civilization or the well being and freedom of the
individual? I don’t believe you can have one without, at some level, suppressing the other. It is a
question that is very similar to trying to define freedom. At what point does allowing an
individual start to impact the freedom of another? On social pressure, at what point does
conformity hinder the ability to be truly one’s self? When Freud talks about the limitations put
on pleasure by social pressure it may not necessarily be a bad thing. There are people who get
pleasure out of raping young men, but I don’t believe they should indulge in that particular
pleasure and I believe the standard of sexual consent is a benefit to society. Also, by having that
standard in place, it may reduce the temptations of evil and furthermore reinforce the ideas of
individual