How possible is it to extricate yourself from the social mores of your time?

[Maria]

Angel Clare is undoubtedly the most frustrating and disappointing characters in Tess of the d'Urbervilles. However, I think Hardy meant Angel Clare to be a representation of all of us. When you think about it, Angel is really the most crucial character in the entire novel. The decision that he made was really what put the final nail in Tess's coffin. He's generally a likeable guy who's progressive and open-minded, but in the end, he couldn't remain completely unaffected by the strong social undercurrents of his time. Is it ever really possible to do that? Think about it-in one hundred years, how do you think we will be judged? As much as we like to judge his character, are we really any better? It's a humbling thought to ponder.

[Hayley]

To extricate yourself from the social mores of your time I think you need to have some psychopathic elements to your personality - I don't mean that in a go-out-and-commit-crimes way, but in the ability to simply not care what others think of you. I think back to my high school days and there were always a couple of students who seemed to have that 'talent.' (I would call it a talent, though it could also be a disability.) Interesting question.

[Emma]

I suppose to remove yourself from a social norm is to recognise it as such. I wonder if there are too many situations and scenarios that we just take us red and only recognise as a the 'norm' of the era which could have been deviated from, after?

Good question.

[Ken]

It's possible, but it depends on how committed you are. I think that some of the key factors are first the ability to be conscious of contemporary society's effect on you, to understand that breaking with the norm will cause friction between you and others - possibly resulting in alienation, and ultimately, how these discoveries are judged against the alternative of just floating with the current. You may lose friends, you may lose status, you may need to confront these possibilities when deciding to strike out against convention and set your own path.

So to the question of degree, I believe the degree to which extrication is possible depends on the strength of character of the individual and the depth of sacrifice they are willing to accept.

[Feliks]

Philosophy is the answer.

[Katrinka]

Hayley wrote: "To extricate yourself from the social mores of your time I think you need to have some psychopathic elements to your personality - I don't mean that in a go-out-and-commit-crimes way, but in the ab..."
Wouldn't individuals with the more "psychopathic" character elements be more apt to be found amongst those who "go-along" to "get-along? " The innovators, the original thinkers who dare to go against the grain of society's more's are the ones who make progress possible and who make it possible for human rights to advance. For example, women were once denied the right to vote, it was accepted. But social mores change slowly, hence, we see that women are still seen as second class citizens by much of society--a good example is seen in Ireland where a young Indian woman was allowed to die a horrific death by sepsis rather than be allowed to have an abortion. Her life was literally seen as worth nothing by the culture in which she lived. And so, to say that people who fight against these types of social mores are the ones with the "psychopathic" elements is highly debatable. Every right that most of us enjoy today has come from people who put what is morally right ahead of what is socially acceptable. That doesn't seem psychopathic, in fact the opposite.

[Dana]

"How possible is it to extricate yourself from the social mores of your time?"

Philosophy is the answer, I feel. Also, I would suggest, read Steppenwolf by Hermann Hesse and help towards the answer, perhaps.

[Katrinka]

To Issaac and Feliks. Good luck with the philosophy thing. Angel, in TOTD, fought a battle with moral cowardice. Not unusual at all for his time or any time. Perhaps philosophical theories would have helped a real person in his situation sort through his feelings and know what was right, but acting on what is right is a whole different thing. Not knowing what is right and not doing something about it, is, IMHO, on a higher moral plane that knowing what is right and not doing something about it. So, if philosophy is the answer, couldn't it also be seen as leading to a larger problem? If people are enlightened by reason or knowledge, they then lose all excuse for failure to act, especially in a timely manner.

[Allan]

I'm surprised there were a lot of negative reviews of Hardy's novels during his time. People saw him as a pessimist. To me, he's more of a realist. Maybe there were just a lot of sanctimonious, sententious and pretentious people during Hardy's time.

[S.W.]

Where are the "social mores of our time" written down? A flag-burning liberal progressive will have a different opinion from a Bible-thumping, Gun-toting conservative. I contend that there is no such thing as a universal "social norm of our time." Each of us has different values and no one has a monopoly on the truth.

For sake of argument, I think a homeless person comes close to living outside generally accepted "norms of society."

[Ken]

I'd disagree that the concepts need to be universal or codified. Everyone exists within a context. Escaping the context, whatever social norm that may be for each individual, is not such an easy thing to do.

I'd say that you're right about the homeless - without possessions, and without the fear of social fallout, their mobility to escape is strongest. However, they also face the stiffest resistance to re-entering the generalized social context that the majority exist in, precisely because of their lack of possessions and social standing.

[S.W.]

I suppose in a democracy, the majority "opinion" determines the social norm at any given time. At one time in America, people with dark skin and women were considered intellectually inferior and weren't given equal rights or opportunities. Now, we recognize the stupidity and cruelty of those mistaken views. I see a similar evolution taking place with Gay rights/marriage. In Muslim countries, Sharia Law could be considered the "societal norm." I agree with Ken: it depends on the context in which you exist. And like any good Catholic, we can choose which rules to follow and which rules to ignore. Being a contrarian is tough sledding but as JS Mills noted, There is truth in diversity.

[S.W.]

There is protection and companionship as a member of the herd; there is danger and isolation as an outcast. There is a need for conformity to remain in good standing within society, but conformity limits our personal freedom. The very same rules that protect us also enslave us. It's a delicate balance.

One could argue the Washington Elite (Supreme Court Justices, Senators, Congressmen/women, President, VP and Cabinet) decide our social mores. Some might look to Hollywood or the media. Others may listen to the intelligentsia. In the end, the historians have the final say on the matter---but even they can't always agree.

I interpreted the original question as, "Do we ever truly know the social mores of our times, and if we did, would we still insist on swimming upstream or just go with the flow."

[Angie]

S.W. wrote: "There is protection and companionship as a member of the herd; there is danger and isolation as an outcast. There is a need for conformity to remain in good standing within society, but conformity..."

I agree, because part of being human is feeling that we belong to group where we can receive protection, support and "friendship".

In a group, the members share similar ideas, not the same.

In every group, either human or not, there has to be rules which have to "keep a balance" between one's needs and the group's existence and harmony: the social mores.

The problems arise when inside the group there is people who wants to incline the balance more to their own, possibly shallow and/or sick, benefits.

Ones decide to obey them because of fear of losing what they have; others decide to risk themselves to do a change for something better, either for themselves or for the group in general.

There are many example of this through History (the corruption, the revolutions, the organization of societies where people have more privileges than others and the start to abuse of them, the mob psychology etc).

Another problem is that both people and social mores can contradict themselves (like Angel did, and lawyers can use) in order to say why you cannot apply to them the rules they told you to follow and accept.

One typical example, your parents reprimand you if you do something "wrong" like lying, but when they do something similar and you see it, they look for excuses to pardon their behavior and to have more advantages in the group ("I do it because I am you father/mother", "you can do it when you have your own family", "you are growing up, I am old and I can't change" etc).

The only way to get out of this negative circle is knowing how to overcome the fear of what others say, not caring about the criticism you will receive. Part of overcoming the fear is to know and secure that you can be on your own without depending on the others.

Another solution, a simpler one, would be becoming like Robinson Crusoe, if one doesn't care to be alone and can handle the loneliness for the rest of his/her life.

[Angie]

James wrote: "...It is sometimes possible, in the abstract, to disregard the social mores of one's time and place, but more often than not, one is constrained by the need for economic security. If Tess had had her own money, enough to live independently, wouldn't her fate have been different?"

Yes, if she had had the economic security for both her and her parents and siblings.

[Dave]

Probably we're all influenced by the social norms of our times. We may fault Angel for the harm he did Tess, but this didn't result from his intent to do harm. Actually, only farmer Groby was intent on harming/punishing Tess. All the other characters harmed Tess as a result of their social situation and a certain indifference to her.

Another question is how we of the 21 century can read Tess and understand it's meanings and intentions for readers of the 19th century. Many readers today think Hardy was misogynistic in his portrayal of female characters, but I wonder if readers of his time would've felt the same.

Also, some have stated weakness was a character fault in Tess. On this point I strongly disagree.
Women held an inferior social and legal status in nineteenth century England. Also, rural laboring women held a very low social rank. Tess deferred to men and wealth because that was the custom and necessity in her world. In relation to her ethical character, Tess ought to be considered a tower of strength. Rather than compromise her pride in being responsible, generous and fair to those close to her she sacrificed her well-being without complaint or second thoughts.