The Seceder Model shows how the local tendency to be different gives rise to the formation of groups. This is an intriguing concept as it shows how man-made constructs such as religion and caste, have the power to both unite and divide. The Seceder Model closely analyses human behaviour with societal expectations and proves how being 'different' from the regular norm causes normality and conformity.
It raised the following questions in my mind:
Is normality any different from conformity? Does conforming to set norms make us lose our sense of individuality? If yes, then isn’t the concept of normality doing the same?
The term "norm" in psychology refers to shared ideas, expectations, and behavioural standards among members of a group or society. Some of these expectations are formal and explicit, but the vast majority are informal and do not require compliance. Some standards are designed to ensure proper performance in a variety of jobs and settings.
Failure to adhere to these "norms" frequently results in isolation.
It's natural to ask how, when, and why people become enslaved by societal conventions. Well, we are often born into them, or we pick them up as we grow more aware of what our peers think of us.
Conformity, also known as majority influence, occurs when members of a group demand that individuals follow specific norms or behave in certain ways.
To sum up, normalcy is viewpoint. One feels obliged to conform in order to fit in with one's peers during times of change, especially when we undergo a big upheaval such as at the outset of adulthood. As a result, individuals are subjected to peer pressure that determines how they should and should not act.
Despite the constant barrage of pressure from all sides, there are times when one realises that "normalcy" is overrated and individuality can only be preserved through breaking out of societal norms.