From something as small as a child speaking his mind to something as large as nationwide protest, nonconformity is everywhere and vital for progress. Whether it be a rebellious teen and an overbearing parent or a new progressive movement and a domineering government, there will always be someone wishing to simply be unique and someone wishing to conform him. Although some believe that nonconformity is fundamentally nonviolent, it is more often the case that both the nonconformists’ predisposed vice and the vindictive nature of those wishing to conform them lead to inherent volatility, persecution, or physical danger.

     Disobedience is rarely successful without a quarrel or backlash as the force and strength with which some groups suppress rebellion is often far worse than any violence caused by the dissidents themselves. The recent events involving the murder of several Parisian journalists working for the satiric periodical Charlie Hebdo illustrate the inherent bitterness of such groups. Charlie Hebdo specializes in especially obscene and vulgar caricatures world figures. Charlie Hebdo had been pushing the envelope for some while, going where no journalist group had gone before, to direct satirization of major Islamic religious leaders. For decades, any negative opinion about religion was seen as offensive and condemned by the public, but Charlie Hebdo has continued to exercise its freedom of opinion. The New York Times article “The Charlie Hebdo Massacre in Paris” from The Editorial Board, including Andrew Rosenthal and Terry Tang,  recalled how the Journalists “Scoffed at any suggestion that the magazine should tone down its trademark satire to appease anyone” (Rosenthal et al.). Led by the natural urge to express their convictions regardless of public opinion, the journalists at Charlie Hebdo epitomize the inherent risk in nonconformity when ideals clash and pride takes over. Rejecting the social traditions of granting religious sovereignty, especially those which often use fear and terror as a tactic to subdue free speech and self-expression, the journalists at Charlie Hebdo stood up for their principles and fought for their right to remain individuals. Dissent, it seems, came at a price for Charlie Hebdo as the journalists were immediately subject to treats of violence. The dangers of disobedience are further revealed in the film The Dead Poets Society. At Welton Academy the professors teach conformity, discipline, and tradition until the unorthodox English teacher John Keating encourages his students to think for themselves and “Seize the day”. Keating’s lessons resonate deeply with one student in particular, Neil Perry, whose father has always kept him rigorously straight-laced and on track to become a Doctor. Neil’s strained relationship with his father epitomizes the basic struggle of all nonconformists and free thinkers; for all who wish to become individuals themselves encounter some form of opposition. Neil’s opposition happened to be his father while ours may be another authority, governing body, or even ourselves. Neil’s struggle with his father became increasingly volatile as he wished to stray farther away from tradition; this impulsive struggle would eventually lead to Neil Perry’s death. Nonconformists face innate resistance as those wishing to retain authority would go to increasing lengths to do so, even using terror and violence.

     Human individuality is hard to hold onto; but when reason and prudence take a back seat to our natural desire to regulate our own destiny, the ramifications are often drastic. Mankind’s primordial need to retain control has been taken to the extreme in the case of a recent measles outbreak where hundreds of parent have voluntarily chosen not to vaccinate their children. In his article for Forbes entitled “Anti-Vaccine Movement Causes Worst Measles Epidemic in 20 Years”, Editor Steven Salzberg condemns such parents for their continued lack of judgment in the face of “Overwhelming scientific evidence” (Salzberg). Although the parents and others alike are given the right to choose whether or not their child gets vaccinated, this ability to make our own decisions is often abused, leaving the child pervious to disease. In many instances like these, what may been seen as “conformity” is actually prudent decision making while “nonconformity” is simply ignorance disguised as free thinking. Salzberg implores parents to “Stop listening to nonsense and choose wisely” (Salzberg). Salzberg’s image of “nonsense” can be transferred to our own thoughts, natural instincts, or underlying convictions that take hold of our desires. Regardless, it is when we voluntarily accept these beliefs on the basis of controlling our own destiny that the pursuit of individuality yields unforeseen consequences, both good and bad. The dangerous hazards of nonconformity show up in The Dead Poets Society as well, particularly in the events leading up to Neil’s suicide. Acting on Mr. Keating’s advice to “seize the day”, Neil joins the school play completely against his father’s scornful wishes. When Mr. Perry eventually discovers his son’s intent, he forbids him from both Keating and the play, it is also at this point where Neil decides to take his own life. Neil Perry’s suicide was not caused by anger or desperation, but by his instinctual need to control his own future and make his own decisions. Without a school play or newspaper, Neil realizes that the only real part of his life he has control over is his own existence. Neil’s decision is unique in that he heartily takes command and accepts the consequences of his actions. Although he perishes as result, his cathartic release can be felt by all hoping to take command as he did. The gratifying exuberance of noncompliance is intrinsic in all of us, making conformity an option rarely explored. Neil’s need to control his own life, a parent’s need to control his own children, and a nonconformist’s natural desire to remain unique all exemplify the inherent risk that comes with resisting authority or rejecting tradition.

     The presupposition that nonconformity is inherently peaceful and nonviolent is false. However, given the right circumstances, nonconformist actions can be easily seen as being innately non aggressive. Recent paradigms that appear to be fundamentally peaceful include the large “Black Lives Matter” and “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” movements centered around inequality. These two recent movements, although nonviolent as they were, are mere factions the all-encompassing, racial prejudice movement. Other similar protests of the exact same context and time period have fared differently. Extremely violent protests in Ferguson, Missouri  all began with the same intentions as “Black Lives Matter” and “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot”, to protest racial inequality in the United States; but even though Ferguson shared the exact same beginnings, it quickly escalated into one of the worst acts of violence in recent years. Journalists Monica Davey and Julie Bosman describe this period of civil unrest in their The New York Times piece, “Protests Flare after Ferguson Police Officer Is Not Indicted”. The pair highlights how passive disobedience is often unobtainable as even “President Obama appealed for peaceful protest” yet violence erupted (Bosman and Davey). The inherent dangers of noncompliance are caused by the protestors own flaws as well as the depravity of those in power. Only one side of the protest must contain flaws for it to turn violent. In the case of “Black Lives Matter”, neither the protestors nor the authority felt violence was imminent, and thus, a rare form of nonconformity existed for a transitory period. In the case of the Ferguson riots, both the nonconformists and the authority held deep rooted animosity, leading to a truly in unparalleled “New Wave of anger” (Bosman and Davey).

     Whether it be how others react to your disobedience or how you choose to act on your own unconventional ideas, mankind’s instinctual pursuit of individuality will always remain a risky endeavor. Nonconformists know that their decisions yield dangerous consequences, but it is this same awareness that makes them truly free thinkers. Progress, prosperity, and happiness would not exist if those wishing to push the boundaries and speak their convictions simply refused to take on such inherent risk. Whatever the dangers, self-expression must not be subdued or repressed; for when we lose the very thing that makes us unique, human individuality becomes a faint illusion.