A hijab is a scarf or veil-like article of clothing worn by women of the Muslim culture, covering most of the upper body, including the head, neck, ears, and chest. Trailer parks are designated open areas in which mobile homes or trailers are parked, creating a neighborhood or community habituated historically by lower-class citizens. Barbie dolls are plastic figurines, designed to portray a conventionally attractive woman, and ordinarily can be found in a household or abode with young girls present. A short-sleeved jersey, high socks, and shin guards all serve as the generic uniform for a soccer team or international football association. All of these garbs and grounds are unique to particular groups, lifestyles, and cultures within society. It is precisely these traits and concepts that breed similarity and uphold Unitarianism within the vast array of cultures and people of civilized humanity. With that being said, taking a deeper look into this phenomenon of standardized similarity, there lies the interesting and complex feat of standing out within a specific, predetermined group. While it is true that groups tend to find a common ground of similar practices and beliefs to sustain, there are instances where members of a particular group break from the confined walls of similitude to pursue a divergent, even completely separate lifestyle. Under these circumstances, the culture is violated, the uniformity crumbles, and backlash occurs through communication both verbally and nonverbally. For every herd of porcelain, fleece-ridden sheep grazing collectively, there is always a lone, black sheep in the pasture. Examining this feat in various cultures, there is a predominant and prevailing idea is that outliers within groups receive different treatment.
Sharpening the scope and honing in on a specific culture, embedded in the practices of Amish people in the United States there is a scornful space in their social spectrum for nonconformists and violators. The Amish community and culture is one that stands extremely tight-knit, bonding its people together under the hand of God and religion as a whole. Choosing to reject modern society and innovation, people of the Amish community practice a slow and simple daily life routine, placing Jesus and his ideas at the top of their priorities. “Beyond discipleship, the Amish church accents the values of humility, obedience, community, pacifism, and separation from mainstream society,” and it is these values that are instilled in the core of the community (Kraybill, 2014, pg. 13). Although wound tightly, deep within the spool of the Amish there are areas of unraveling that transpire among grounds of nonconformity. At the age of sixteen, Amish teens have the opportunity to breathe air outside of their culture during a period called “Rumspringa.” Eventually ending with a decision to remain or break from the community, the people who choose to accept the modern life and leave the Amish way are met with bitter contempt. These mavericks of modern martyrdom “face excommunication followed by shunning, a shaming practice intended to remind the wayward that they have broken a holy baptismal pledge to God and to the church” (Kraybill, 2014, pg. 14). For a community that prides itself on the admiration of God, simplicity and acceptance, this bitter irony emerges among those who dare to divulge and indulge in a varying way of life. Regardless of background and family ties, this culture shamelessly rejects the black sheep and refuses any other rumination.
While contemporary society has progressed in its equality and acceptance of different groups, ethnicities and cultures, below the surface there are still subtle divides and prejudices. Homologous to the ideas found embedded in the Amish culture and society, parallels and similarities can be drawn to other groups, including the black community. Founded on a framework of unity, pride, and closeness, the black community in America and its global counterparts are built on a grandiose heritage. A report from the Pew Research Center (2012) analyzing the demographic and economic characteristics of newlyweds who marry spouses of a different ethnicity or race reports that only 26% of blacks in the United States married out in 2010. While this is only one statistic, the numbers reflect a culture that tends to stay within the race boundaries, upholding this sense of pure unity. Examining this trend from the opposite end of the scope, there is a subtle yet prevalent aversion towards those who wander from this rigid culture and bring an interracial force to the mix. From a classical standpoint, “resistance to Black and White interracial relationships is historically situated in America’s struggle with its racial past” (G. C. Bell and S. O. Hastings, 2011, pg. 241). In other words, feasible reasons for the rejection of such an interracial couple roots back to the overall past turmoil between the black and white community. Although oppression as seen during the Civil War era has dissipated with the times, hostility still often occurs with the interracial relationship. Bell & Hastings (2011) asserted that “much of the opposition interracial couples experience is from their families and the public.” This strife is a direct result of this deep-rooted, cultural unrest, and leads to strain between each individual group community as well as the relationship itself. Henceforth, regardless of the social progress between these races as well as the closeness within the black commonality, the stray from cultural uniformity brings forth a communicative rejection towards the specific pariah.
While this “black sheep paradigm” is often more identifiable in groups and cultures on a larger demographic scale such as the Amish and black communities of America, this hostile ideology conjointly ferments among other spheres. Across the Atlantic and deep in the heart of Norway, there is a social construct that serves as the concrete foundation to societal practices, attitudes, and ways of life. This collectivist country and its citizens, by and large, are chiefly exultant and content. Riotously driven by community, Norwegians are raised by the hand of a concept referred to as “Jante,” or “Janteloven.” As defined, Janteloven involves “essentially a set of ten rules that are designed to limit ambitions or attempts to be successful with the overall goal of preventing jealousy from arising amongst people” (Bracciodieta, 2011, pg. 93). Rather than encourage free thought, idea, and design, this instilled cultural notion prompts citizens to “discourage and lesson the occurrence of competition” in order to “create more peace and equanimity overall” (Bracciodieta, 2011, pg. 93). While this is a more rigid, old-fashioned definition, Jante remains engrained in society and culminates below the surface through encouraged collectivism and collaboration rather than individualism. It is with this that leads the independent thinker and creator to be ridiculed and viewed as selfish. Due to the outweighing capacity of social conformity, those who stray from the unity, stand out, or act in an oppositional manner are unwelcomed and disfavored in this culture. Regardless of bloodline or lineage, the conclusive factor is that those who veer from the common culture tend to be treated differently.
In sum, it is plausible to conclude that in every group of unified people, norms as well as identity and unity all serve as vital organs to the interworking and functionality. The common and shared traits of a culture unite people along a homogeneous ground, forming a localized and unique skeleton of behaviors, communication, and interaction. While it is apparent that specific cultures and groups tend to breed similar identities, there lies the exceptional phenomenon of being the outlier within ones particular group. Investigating this concept through a sociocultural lens, it is authentically conclusive that the “black sheep” of the group receives different treatment and communication from other members. For some groups, this varying treatment stems from historically underlying thoughts and feelings, while other groups justify actions and behaviors on behalf of religion and morals. Despite the roots in which these feelings stem from, they all grow towards the same altitude; a level at which consonance is greatly esteemed. Society is ridden with millions of specified cultures, with respective members of all walks and ways. It is by virtue of this marvel that the black sheep paradigm manifests, shedding its light on the ones who remain immune to conformity.
References
Bracciodieta, L. (2010). Norway's Culture of Peace. International Journal Of The Humanities, 8(6), 89-101.
Castle Bell, G., & Hastings, S. O. (2011). Black and White Interracial Couples: Managing Relational Disapproval Through Facework. Howard Journal Of Communications, 22(3), 240-259. doi:10.1080/10646175.2011.590405
Kraybill, D. B. (2014). Opting Out. Commonweal, 141(5), 13.
Wang, W. (2012, February 16). The Rise of Intermarriage. Retrieved October 8, 2014, from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/02/16/the-rise-of-intermarriage/
Sharpening the scope and honing in on a specific culture, embedded in the practices of Amish people in the United States there is a scornful space in their social spectrum for nonconformists and violators. The Amish community and culture is one that stands extremely tight-knit, bonding its people together under the hand of God and religion as a whole. Choosing to reject modern society and innovation, people of the Amish community practice a slow and simple daily life routine, placing Jesus and his ideas at the top of their priorities. “Beyond discipleship, the Amish church accents the values of humility, obedience, community, pacifism, and separation from mainstream society,” and it is these values that are instilled in the core of the community (Kraybill, 2014, pg. 13). Although wound tightly, deep within the spool of the Amish there are areas of unraveling that transpire among grounds of nonconformity. At the age of sixteen, Amish teens have the opportunity to breathe air outside of their culture during a period called “Rumspringa.” Eventually ending with a decision to remain or break from the community, the people who choose to accept the modern life and leave the Amish way are met with bitter contempt. These mavericks of modern martyrdom “face excommunication followed by shunning, a shaming practice intended to remind the wayward that they have broken a holy baptismal pledge to God and to the church” (Kraybill, 2014, pg. 14). For a community that prides itself on the admiration of God, simplicity and acceptance, this bitter irony emerges among those who dare to divulge and indulge in a varying way of life. Regardless of background and family ties, this culture shamelessly rejects the black sheep and refuses any other rumination.
While contemporary society has progressed in its equality and acceptance of different groups, ethnicities and cultures, below the surface there are still subtle divides and prejudices. Homologous to the ideas found embedded in the Amish culture and society, parallels and similarities can be drawn to other groups, including the black community. Founded on a framework of unity, pride, and closeness, the black community in America and its global counterparts are built on a grandiose heritage. A report from the Pew Research Center (2012) analyzing the demographic and economic characteristics of newlyweds who marry spouses of a different ethnicity or race reports that only 26% of blacks in the United States married out in 2010. While this is only one statistic, the numbers reflect a culture that tends to stay within the race boundaries, upholding this sense of pure unity. Examining this trend from the opposite end of the scope, there is a subtle yet prevalent aversion towards those who wander from this rigid culture and bring an interracial force to the mix. From a classical standpoint, “resistance to Black and White interracial relationships is historically situated in America’s struggle with its racial past” (G. C. Bell and S. O. Hastings, 2011, pg. 241). In other words, feasible reasons for the rejection of such an interracial couple roots back to the overall past turmoil between the black and white community. Although oppression as seen during the Civil War era has dissipated with the times, hostility still often occurs with the interracial relationship. Bell & Hastings (2011) asserted that “much of the opposition interracial couples experience is from their families and the public.” This strife is a direct result of this deep-rooted, cultural unrest, and leads to strain between each individual group community as well as the relationship itself. Henceforth, regardless of the social progress between these races as well as the closeness within the black commonality, the stray from cultural uniformity brings forth a communicative rejection towards the specific pariah.
While this “black sheep paradigm” is often more identifiable in groups and cultures on a larger demographic scale such as the Amish and black communities of America, this hostile ideology conjointly ferments among other spheres. Across the Atlantic and deep in the heart of Norway, there is a social construct that serves as the concrete foundation to societal practices, attitudes, and ways of life. This collectivist country and its citizens, by and large, are chiefly exultant and content. Riotously driven by community, Norwegians are raised by the hand of a concept referred to as “Jante,” or “Janteloven.” As defined, Janteloven involves “essentially a set of ten rules that are designed to limit ambitions or attempts to be successful with the overall goal of preventing jealousy from arising amongst people” (Bracciodieta, 2011, pg. 93). Rather than encourage free thought, idea, and design, this instilled cultural notion prompts citizens to “discourage and lesson the occurrence of competition” in order to “create more peace and equanimity overall” (Bracciodieta, 2011, pg. 93). While this is a more rigid, old-fashioned definition, Jante remains engrained in society and culminates below the surface through encouraged collectivism and collaboration rather than individualism. It is with this that leads the independent thinker and creator to be ridiculed and viewed as selfish. Due to the outweighing capacity of social conformity, those who stray from the unity, stand out, or act in an oppositional manner are unwelcomed and disfavored in this culture. Regardless of bloodline or lineage, the conclusive factor is that those who veer from the common culture tend to be treated differently.
In sum, it is plausible to conclude that in every group of unified people, norms as well as identity and unity all serve as vital organs to the interworking and functionality. The common and shared traits of a culture unite people along a homogeneous ground, forming a localized and unique skeleton of behaviors, communication, and interaction. While it is apparent that specific cultures and groups tend to breed similar identities, there lies the exceptional phenomenon of being the outlier within ones particular group. Investigating this concept through a sociocultural lens, it is authentically conclusive that the “black sheep” of the group receives different treatment and communication from other members. For some groups, this varying treatment stems from historically underlying thoughts and feelings, while other groups justify actions and behaviors on behalf of religion and morals. Despite the roots in which these feelings stem from, they all grow towards the same altitude; a level at which consonance is greatly esteemed. Society is ridden with millions of specified cultures, with respective members of all walks and ways. It is by virtue of this marvel that the black sheep paradigm manifests, shedding its light on the ones who remain immune to conformity.
References
Bracciodieta, L. (2010). Norway's Culture of Peace. International Journal Of The Humanities, 8(6), 89-101.
Castle Bell, G., & Hastings, S. O. (2011). Black and White Interracial Couples: Managing Relational Disapproval Through Facework. Howard Journal Of Communications, 22(3), 240-259. doi:10.1080/10646175.2011.590405
Kraybill, D. B. (2014). Opting Out. Commonweal, 141(5), 13.
Wang, W. (2012, February 16). The Rise of Intermarriage. Retrieved October 8, 2014, from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/02/16/the-rise-of-intermarriage/