"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery; none but ourselves can free our minds"
- Bob Marley

     What does it mean to stand apart form the crowd? We're continually given conflicting views on this: on one hand, it's labeled as important to 'be yourself,' 'find yourself,' 'rock the boat,' etc.; and on the other we're permeated socially with proper ways to act, look, work, and so on. The power structure in human culture has successfully stifled any sense of individuality by creating standardized normative behavior, yet still we strive to find our own ways of living in a constant struggle to overtake normalcy. This can take several forms, whether you are an artist or an athlete; whether a participant in body modification or a criminal. You're a deviant if you successfully break away from normalcy, whether this break is socially accepted or not.

     There aren't many behaviors that are not now, once were, or will be later, considered 'deviant' or 'criminal.' Some cultures use drugs and ritual body modification to reach enlightenment, for example, yet this is frowned upon in modern Western culture. There is one conclusion to draw from this. That is, there is no absolute good or bad and normalcy is a completely subjective reality. Both of these are, technically, philosophical non-entities. However, we're easily persuaded into accepting these ideas on common sense, good, bad, normal, etc. Drawing from the example above, people shy away from piercings, tattoos, dying your hair purple and other body modification in order to get a 'real' job (that is, unless your name is outZider).

     However, in order to have a sense of normalcy, there must be deviance. In order to have an average in a normal curve, there must be standard deviations from the norm. In a sense, normalcy and deviance are in a symbiotic relationship; they would not exist without one another. There have always been deviants in society, so using this logic we can come to a conclusion that to have deviants in society is a normal occurrence. 'Normal' itself is an ideal-typical occurrence at best.

     If you think hard about it, every outstandingly successful person who has ever existed has been deviant. They have had a vision that no one else has. This set them apart from the 'normal' human and their success was a direct result of their deviance. You can look at any entrepreneur, any artist, any sports figure, etc. and see this. Also, successful people tend to be extravagant. Most would say that this is because they tend to make a lot of money, but could it be that they are naturally deviant, which led to their successes in the first place? The attitude that breeds success is the attitude that you don't want what the masses want, and you have an idea of how to be good at something different. You don't want to be normal. You want to stand out. If we look so highly on people who are deviant and successful, calling them 'role models' and the like, then why do we continually look down on people who are deviant and not in the limelight? One of the greatest historical examples of this conundrum is to look at the life of Socrates. The same teachings that were much of the foundation of modern Western society are the same that got him condemned to death by similar common-sense fallacies as the ones that exist today.

     Emile Durkheim leveled one of the most foundational critical theories on crime and deviance in the late 1800's that is still studied today by prominent criminologists and those who study societal reactions to deviance. His basic hypothesis is outlined in the following. Crime and deviance are normal occurrences in society, and a society exempt from crime or deviance is impossible. Crime/deviance are acts that offend very strong collective sentiments or values. If there were no crime/deviance, then that would mean that the larger society has reached a point of the collective and there would be no individuality. Strict uniformity is impossible because of hereditary, social, and psychological upbringings that vary from culture to culture, and human to human. Therefore, since no one is alike, then someone is bound to offend prevailing collective sentiments. It's not the act that makes something criminal or deviant, but the underlying collective conscious associated with that act.

     Durkheim gives two solutions to this problem. One: in order to raise the expectations of criminal or deviant behavior, the expectations of the behavior of normal citizens must also be raised. This is a sort of 'lead by example' clause. The second, and in my opinion, much more valid, conclusion is that collective sentiments must become more lax in order to 'solve' the 'problem' of deviance. An interesting thing to note is that in both solutions, it's the acts of the 'normal' person, not the 'deviant' one that 'solves' these 'problems.' This is because what is central to Durkheim is the fact that deviance is normal and necessary for the function of society. What we really want to strive for is individuality and uniqueness, because probably the most common and interesting human trait is that every single one of us is different and brings different cards to the table, and has something to offer humanity as a whole to make it better.

     A prevalent idea in modern society is that laws create crimes unnecessarily. Governments create things like lotteries in order to facilitate revenue for the general state, yet gambling is criminal except in very few government-sanctioned facilities. Alcohol, which is severely dangerous under certain circumstances, is legal in certain areas and for certain people. Yet medical practitioners and sufferers of debilitating illness have to fight tooth and nail to make marijuana legal for medicinal purposes, despite the fact that much more dangerous and addictive narcotics exist to alleviate pain in those who suffer illness. Recently I was comparing crimes and sentencing in my area, and I found that, on average, those convicted of drug felonies got twice the prison time as perpetrators of violence, robbery, and etc. (keep in mind, these are general tendencies that were studied on my own).

     Moreover, if you are an honest, intelligent person with good ideas on how to change society for the better, you can kiss goodbye any political win if you have any history of criminal conviction (it's no matter what the conviction was), or even anything as stupid as a divorce, illicit affair, etc. You can also kiss goodbye any political office if you have any apparent piercings, tattoos, or other physical deviances that make you look different than everyone else. One of my biggest problems with modern society and government is that they successfully stifle any attempt to be even somewhat different. I'm a big proponent of Marxian theory, but I'm (for the most part) against communism and socialism because there is no sense of individuality in these societies, even theoretically.

     However, this essay isn't about government, or crime. Those are good examples of how we are practitioners of our own quashed sense of individuality. It's really easy to be different, however it's not easy or important to be successful in those differences. The most dangerous ideology is one where we allow ourselves to think that, in order to be a full-fledged, up to potential human being, we need to grasp onto these socially defined ideas about normalcy and common sense. On the other hand, it's so easy to fall into a trap where you find yourself different than most, then merely sit back and complain that you can't get anywhere in life because of it. Women, homosexuals, racial minorities, etc. have to fight constantly in order to be on the same social plane as white, heterosexual men. There's such a thing as being discriminated against, even if you are a while, heterosexual male. This happens especially if you do recreational drugs, look different, or choose a lifestyle that is different. There's also such a thing as having a political and social platform to voice these grievances.

     What's most important than any of this is to be a constant living witness to the fact that you are an individual, and you choose this over being another mass-produced, automated piece of flesh. The lifestyle you choose should be that because you want to live that way, not because you need to do such-and-such in order to get such-and-such job, wife, dog, and house (picket fence included). You only have one life to live (at least that's what we speculate), so you may as well live that life being your own person, doing what you want to do, having fun, and leaving as much of a positive a mark as you can before you leave this place. Be an individual, be yourself, and give society a big middle finger when you find that it's blocking your path.