Real Independence

Something that I have a hard time comprehending is how it is that many people wish to be "counter-cultural" as an end in and of itself. Do not misunderstand me; that one should be counter-cultural insofar as the culture is in error in some respect goes without saying, of course. As a Catholic, for instance, I am in that sense very counter-cultural. But in that case, my being counter-cultural is a result of following Christ, and not an end in and of itself. I am pursuing what I believe to be good, and as a consequence, I will be counter-cultural to a very large degree (certainly in matters of morality). But I don't start by aiming to be counter-cultural; I have a different end in view. Which brings me back to my original point. What is the point of being "counter-cultural" for its own sake?

Is it simply to be "different"? But why does one wish to be "different" for its own sake? To be honest, that strikes of a snobbish and elitist attitude. Thus, take one aspect of how some are counter-cultural: scorning conventions. While convention is not necessarily virtuous in itself, of course (and there are some "conventions" one should reject in any given society for independent reasons), at least convention in the abstract has this one great merit: it is democratic. One who has respect for conventions (as a general rule) is, in that sense at least, not taking a snobbish attitude towards fellow human beings, making himself greater than he really is, as if he is better than all those other “common” people.

Or, again, to take another example, matters of taste. If you simply have an independent taste naturally (say, in music), then there is no reason to try to artificially like something just because it's popular. If you happen to like better something that may not be as popular and perhaps less well-known, then that is perfectly legitimate. We all have different tastes, after all. But the reverse is also true, which seems to be forgotten by many. It seems foolish to artificially dislike something because it's popular, and try to be "counter-cultural" instead. Paradoxical as it may seem to some, being counter-cultural in that sense eliminates your individuality, because it eliminates your independence.

Which brings me to the greatest problem with being "counter-cultural" for its own sake. To do so is to exchange independence for slavery. After all, it matters little whether your slavery is determined by forcing yourself to like something because it is popular, or forcing yourself to dislike something for that reason. It is still slavery, because it does not allow room for independent taste (in those areas that are matters of taste, of course). Instead, if you want real independence, then what Chesterton wrote concerning the Scottish author George MacDonald should be your ideal:

He is so independent of conventions that he becomes conventional by accident. He is so unconscious of the beaten track that he even walks on it.