The following stream of consciousness is largely derived from an article on brainpickings called Kierkegaard on Nonconformity, the Individual vs. the Crowd, and the Power of the Minority. Would highly recommend.

---

‘Conformity’ is a bit of an ugly word. I’ve always associated it with a sense of loss and giving up a piece of yourself to comply with a broader standard. Don’t get me wrong – solid, universal guidelines are important for any well-functioning society, but the loss of individuality – an inevitable consequence of conformity – is unfortunate nonetheless. As Eleanor Roosevelt put it more poetically,

“When you adopt the standards and the values of someone else, you surrender your own integrity [and] become, to the extent of your surrender, less of a human being.”

The question must be asked, then: what are ways in which we can independently conform, behaving in such a way that is in line with society’s reasonable standards but protects individual freedom of thought?

The Danish writer and thinker Søren Kierkegaard offers various insights in his journals, starting with a reflection on how one should protect their integrity, emphasizing the importance of quiet communion. He writes,

“One can very well eat lettuce before its heart has been formed; still, the delicate crispness of the heart and its lovely frizz are something altogether different from the leaves. It is the same in the world of the spirit. Being too busy has this result: that an individual very, very rarely is permitted to form a heart; on the other hand, the thinker, the poet, or the religious personality who actually has formed his heart, will never be popular, not because he is difficult, but because it demands quiet and prolonged working with oneself and intimate knowledge of oneself as well as a certain isolation.”

But while it’s helpful to know the role of reflection, another problem arises: how does one know if they’ve broken out of the bubble of conformity?” While this question seems to be unanswerable, Kiekegaard provides another clue in looking towards the majority:

“Truth always rests with the minority … because the minority is generally formed by those who really have an opinion, while the strength of a majority is illusory, formed by the gangs who have no opinion.”

This sentiment echoes that of Anthony de Mello in his short reflections on Awareness, where he vividly describes the moment of enlightenment and separation from the majority:

“Do you know one sign that you’ve woken up? It’s when you are asking yourself, “Am I crazy, or are all of them crazy?” It really is. Because we are crazy. The whole world is crazy. Certifiable lunatics! The only reason we’re not locked up in an institution is that there are so many of us. So we’re crazy. We’re living on crazy ideas about love, about relationships, about happiness, about joy, about everything. We’re crazy to the point, I’ve come to believe, that if everybody agrees on something, you can be sure it’s wrong! Every new idea, every great idea, when it first began was in a minority of one. That man called Jesus Christ—minority of one. Everybody was saying something different from what he was saying. The Buddha— minority of one. Everybody was saying something different from what he was saying. I think it was Bertrand Russell who said, “Every great idea starts out as a blasphemy.”

Indeed, Christ – who could be regarded as the most influential minority in history – echoes this warning through the apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans:

Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is–his good, pleasing and perfect will. (Romans 12:2 NIV)

But of course, there remains the problem in that truth is rarely obvious. Two people can look at the same world and see two completely different places. One might despair at the injustice, the grief and the lack of meaning governed by death and yet another can be astounded by the beauty and opportunities enabled by life. What do we choose when the truth is uncertain?

The answer to this is up to each individual to decide. This, I believe, was the core question Yann Martel was trying to address in his vivid bestseller, Life of Pi. In the novel’s climax, the protagonist Pi Patel presents a challenge to his interrogators, challenging them to err on the side of faith rather than reason:

“The arrogance of big-city folk! You grant your metropolises all the animals of Eden, but you deny my hamlet the merest Bengal tiger!”

“Mr. Patel, please calm down.”

“If you stumble at mere believability, what are you living for? Isn’t love hard to believe?”

“Mr. Patel– ”

“Don’t bully me with your politeness! Love is hard to believe, ask any lover. Life is hard to believe, ask any scientist. God is hard to believe, ask any believer. What is your problem with hard to believe?”

“We’re just being reasonable.”

“So am I! I applied my reason at every moment. Reason is excellent for getting food, clothing and shelter. Reason is the very best tool kit. Nothing beats reason for keeping tigers away. But be excessively reasonable and you risk throwing out the universe with the bathwater.”

And so, the decision remains open to us all. Will we conform, embracing the majority at the expense of our integrity? Or will we embark on an uncertain, meditative journey in the quest for truth? And if the latter, what weapons will we use to guide us? Reason, hope, or a pinch of both?