AD603 Critical Theory

I couldn’t get myself to write this time and luckly found this amazing writing from one of Colombia’s greatest thinkers: Profesor Bazuco. Maybe this link will help to understand the complexity of his message.

Here some screenshots!

The first reading introduced me to Theodor Adornos views on the world he lived in.  I would say that you can apply some of his theory to todays mass media influence on product advertisement and sales.

Over the river and through the woods to culture industry we go?  I could follow through on some of Adorno’s views, yet he lost me more than once.  He made me question if he truly meant what he was saying or if he just got caught up in an idea.  He says things throughout the reading that seem questionable.  For instance he claims a “profound distrust of all rational resolutions.” (231) this comment is in the beginning of the reading, and already turns me off to his points of view.  From this statement alone I get the feeling that if I were to sit down and have a discussion / argument with Adorno we would get nothing accomplished in understanding each other.  I am not saying that I disagree with all of Adorno’s views, in actuality I can easily relate to them.  I can agree that popular culture affects the lives of a vast majority of individuals.  The culture industry is “Hollywood movies, radio, mass-produced journalism, and advertising” (p.31 of the culture studies reader) I agree with this statement.  All of the things we see and watch are a part of the culture industry; to Adorno this is a way to lead the mass population into passivity, numbness, satisfaction in the simplest of simple.  We see, we buy and we love the product we now have. 

I unfortunately cannot agree with all of Adornos views; he would like to apply his idea of culture industry to nearly everything in life. The mass population follows many different directions rules movements, so much so that I cannot apply the idea of numb lifestyle to everyone.  I can say that a large amount feed into this way of life, yet others are against this way of life, or just pay no attention to this life style.  The most difficult view for me to follow is his reference to art being a part of the culture industry.  I would agree that Warhol was part of the culture industry, but that was his point art as commodity.  Yes, art fairs and to a degree SOFA feed into this idea, but not everything within the community of art is part of the culture industry.  What Adorno lacks is definitive explanation to what is truly part of the culture industry; he wants to include everything and disregards the lines in-between.  To me the culture industry is all black and no white, absolutely no shades of gray.  While reading about Adorno a small piece of  Spike Jonze 1999 film “Being John Malkovich” would play in my head.  In the scene John Malkovich falls into his own head, every one is Malkovich and everything is Malkovich.  In my head everything was culture industry, the only words you could say were culture industry, and the only thing you could do was culture industry.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ur3CQE8xB3c

http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi3568894233/

In the second reading I was struck by the a passage “It has recently become customary among culture officials as well as sociologists to warn against understanding the culture industry while pointing to its great importance for the development of the consciousness of its consumers.” (p.15, C.I.R.).  Consumers understand what is going on they understand that advertisements are creating false needs, and yet they still buy the products.  This only shows that within our society we know, but don’t care we like our simple lives, and false necessities, its what makes us tick. We love shit for no specific reason, and the new desire is a necessity, designer food, brilliant!

In the end I agree and agree to disagree with Adorno, not all of it applies, maybe I’m too caught up in the culture industry? Who knows?

There is no doubt in my mind what group Adorno believes to be the pinnacle of society…the thinkers, the academics, the critics. Although, I by default have to agree, as it is a path I am choosing for myself, however, I find there to be a certain twinge of hypocrisy in his ideas. He is a Marxist, yet, he condemns mass culture because of its tendencies to be manipulated into mass decision. He states that the “thinkers” are marginalized by this notion, because they are few and far between, therefore, their superior ideas are subsequently diluted by the bumbling idiots that have had their decisions made for them… “I have noted, enlightenment, that is the progressive technical domination of nature, becomes mass deception and is turned into a means or fettering consciousness. It impedes the development of the autonomous, independent, individuals who judge and decide consciously for themselves.” (Adorno, 19).

In Adorno’s own words, this seems quite the “snobbish” approach. In Marxism, or in any populous dominated culture, is it not the right of the populous to determine, to judge, and to decide? Would it not be detrimental for a culture or society to be pulverized by a variety of ideologically opposite ideas when a compromised consensus is trying to be made?

My motivation for commenting on this perhaps is the upcoming election, although this is not a reference to art, nor is exactly what I imagine Adorno had in mind, it is nonetheless applicable because its consequences hinge on a mass consensus.  What if, every person decided to think for him or herself, and thus decide that their next-door neighbor is a better-fitted candidate than say…McCain? It’s just an example, but within this logic lies (in my opinion) the shortcomings of Adorno’s argument. Without a constructed set of populous ideals, in which the “consumer” is convinced or persuaded, the resulting aftermath would be nothing less than anarchy.

And within that notion, Adorno undermines each person outside of his own social group. It is not his responsibility to speak for others, nor is it their individual responsibility for others to speak for him. Yet, in this assumption of personal responsibility, Adorno feels that he has somehow been left behind, or that his neighbor has been deceived by those in charge of the forces of manipulation (as well as a number of other people who have in turn made an unconscious decision, inebriated by the twittering of the masses and those in control of them)…

…and as it applies to art, the application of the masses as a determinant is fairly irrelevant as an american issue. The museums and the critics (those in the “art world”) determine the art that is shown, and the masses are then able to judge. Furthermore, do the masses really approve? or do we care? I have observed that not only to the masses not approve of contemporary art (as the function of art is opposite that of cuisine or pornography… to shock, or provoke… not to please) they don’t understand. 

I took a political theory class in my sophomore year of college. During this class, the professor brought up the “issue” of contemporary art, that is, that its goal is to piss people off. She brought up the work “Piss Christ” by Serrano… except she said that it was by Duchamp…(which lead to another discussion). In any case, her point to was to say that art is no longer what it used to be and is no longer based on talent, but can be done by any schmuck who thinks that he’s brilliant and affected. Instead of art being a necessary or natural progression of human development, and an action and attempt to provoke thought; she (as well as most people i know) believe contemporary art to be a deviation from what art to be. 

ive attached a link of a picture of it…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

Maybe I am being a little hard on Adorno; after all he has some very good points… Many of which I agree with. I even agree with the one I am contesting (a little). My point perhaps in that it is possible to think critically about the things we love and agree with, as well as the things we don’t. In fact, maybe it is equally important. We are never so right as when we can look a truth in the face, turn around and find another truth of opposite nature, and then proceed to make a decision…and then find another. I guess I just hate the idea of any statement that is made under the assumption that it is right…So I question and refute them out of principle. 

The term “Culture Industry” was so strong and I was confused with the definition of “Mass culture.” It seemed that Adorno wanted to focus on negative effects of mass culture and needed to create a new term. “Thus, the expression “industry” is not to be taken literally. It refers to the standardization of the thing itself” (p.14)

Aesthetic Theory was, for me, a basis of Adorno’s view on art to come over to Culture Industry Reconsidered by Theodore Adorno. Also thank to The Culture Studies Reader on the blog, I could sketch  Adorno’s notion before I grabbed the latter reading. 

When I encountered these readings,I could think of our society in the middle of  severe mass-media stream. With this stream, Adorno is pessimistic with mass-culture because of its controlled uniformity or standardization. It seems that we are pleased to have so many choices around us, like Baskin Robbins, but the truth is, we are affected and controlled by certain power. Choices that we are happy with are the result of accumulation through repetition and replacement.

“The masses are not primary, but secondary, they are an object of calculation; an appendage of the machinery. The customer is not king, as the culture industry would like to have us believe, not its subject but its object.” (p.12)

“The masses are not the measure but the ideology of the culture industry, even though the culture industry itself could scarcely exist without adapting to the masses.”(p.12)

When I was working in a fashion company, I felt weird with the meaning of “trend.”Trend is defined as “a general direction in which something is developing or changing.”  I understood trend as a present tense not in future tense. That was what I know of. But in reality, I felt that trend was operated. The next season’s “trend” was determined about 1 year in advance before they design with specific style. It was because we needed to “plan.”  In this sense,  the leading fashion organization or a certain power from so-called the Mecca of the fashion or whatever suggested to use specific styles, colors, and fabrics as a part of “expected trend.” They also had preview show to cover that trend and sold that information to companies. Though it was presented with analysis of economic/ political situation of the world as its background contents, still it was rather subjective.Adorno is right here and say, “way to go!”

Everyday I am exposed to countless media such as the Internet ,television and radio, as well as all kinds of newspapers and magazines.Are these media consist of me or individual or my things consists of the media? 

Also sometimes I feel like I am in a world controlled by someone.In this sense, Truman show is no longer a mere movie and it reflects our everyday life which is controlled by someone or something. Imagine this someone chuckles at us!

Here is the link “RETHINK Mass Media-Rethink Capitalism” to taste a bit of Chomsky’s.

From Noam Chomsky and the media. 2004. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOsBZPnmoQA

As an outsider of art, I still inertly pursue the benefit that critique theory can bring to design, more concretely, industrial design. I believe the aesthetic topic includes the aesthetics in art and aesthetics in design although the latter is not mentioned in the two reading chapters, partly because design was not significant as its role today or people at that time didn’t realize to distinguish the art and design. The word Art jumps frequently into my eyes while at the same time another scene shows up in my mind with the design is its main actor. Inspired by Adorno’s blurry Art and Aesthetic theory, I created a structure for an understanding of the aesthetics and ornaments aspects in industrial design and aslo tried to analyze them.

Art works have life because they speak in ways nature and static that man cannot, and then works of industrial design can speak because they have behavior to talk to the user and bring them experience. Ornaments in the visual arts originally tended to be cult symbols and they also play a similar role in industrial design, but more functionally, for the psychological needs of the users. Design seldom secludes itself from the world because they want to talk. Art is art because it has freedom. Artists can enjoy this freedom while industrial designers can also. By bringing the users and clients more convenience and value, we create the freedom in a more direct and in-ego way. In Adorno’s mind, to meet the criterion of the success of art, it needs to have the integration of materials and details into their immanent law of form, and also should keep its fractures left by the process integration. Since art is more about a personal process while design serves for the public, the criterion of the success of design involves more factors with most of which are not judged by spiritual essence.

Adorno definitely argue the mass-produced culture. On the introduction page of Aesthetic Theory, he is described to distrust of all rational resolutions and to oppose “totalization” which means he didn’t want to see a world with akin appearance. Dialectical speaking, the factories producing standardized commodity and cultural goods could not be avoided due to the industrial revolution. Thus, these mass production goods manipulate the society and lead it to passivity also becomes unavoidable. This was also a time that design starting to replace art to serve for more people especially poor people through the mass-produced goods. History is the process of reason. It would be unreasonable if Adorno and Horkheimer saw this mass-produced culture as a danger to their more difficult high arts. And the real true need that the public pursed, rather than a high art, was an affordable enjoyment that they can attain.

Finally, a question comes into my mind. German industrial design and products give me an impression that they are seious, rational, and some are exquisite. Since lots of philosophic theory were born in Germany, what critical theory or philosophic doctrine influenced them? The case study to the relevant topics might be a good way to understand how critique theories contribute to this major.

The Adorno essays are related through a discussion of art and nonart, and a significance that brings awareness to problems of art in society. Aesthetic Theory addresses the function of art in society, art in relation to nonart, and Kant and Freud; while Culture Industry uses those ideas in a more concrete example apparent in contemporary society. The significance of both articles, is that Adorno does not seek to provide a solution to: art, the idea of art, the comprehension of art, or even a way to view art. Instead, he raises questions about the value of art as a way to encourage us to consider issues of art in society.

In Aesthetic Theory, Adorno discussed art’s creation and its role in society; both being dependent on each other. Concerning role: 1. Communication. Art can communicate in ways that “nature and man cannot”. 2. Lack of communication. Art tends to pull itself away from society at some point, or, in other words, opposes that which is happening in society. 3. Median. Art is a balance between opposing forces, or tensions. Thinking about those points, let’s move on to creation: 1. Style. Through its lack of communication, art styles and methods are based on changes in societal developments. 2. Response. Art becomes a response to unresolved issues, or tensions, in society. 3. Progression. The balancing act between societal tensions keeps the art process in motion.

When Adorno discussed Kant and Freud, he emphasized their involvement in the idea of nonart. He brings up objectivity and subjectivity. Kant’s assessment of art revolves around satisfaction and disinterest. Adorno stated that Kant’s method to objectivity is through subjectivity, and that Kant “rescued art from… insensitivity”. Freud, on the other hand, critics art as empirical, through dreams, instincts, and psychic activities. I believe that Adorno desires a level of subjectivity and objectivity in art, however, through his critic of Kant and Freud, I feel that he believes they may add to nonart by stressing too much on subjectivity.   

Adorno used the idea of nonart in Aesthetic Theory as a way to explain art. In Culture Industry, nonart is stressed as being the result and product of the culture industry. What I liked most about this essay was how it is related to our time, and I wonder how Adorno would feel with today’s culture industry. He defined the culture industry in several ways. One way is through industry: simply put, this involves standardization and distribution. Agencies are employed to create neat packages for all needs: logos, promotion, commercials, theme songs, etc. Another definition is through the question of function and quality. Since the culture industry is dominate in society and of its importance (stressed by the industry) in society, culture industry prevents itself from analysis and any question of its truth. Adorno made a statement that I felt could relate in many different fields, “…the function of something is no guarantee to its particular quality.” He reinforces this with film examples: basic plots and basic characters have an “interchangeable sameness”. He lastly discussed conformity. Adorno believes that the culture industry is a fraud, a restriction of consciousness, promoter of conformity, and a destroyer of art.

While reading Culture Industry, I thought of two things: pop music and muzak. I think most people would agree that pop music is probably the most despised product from the culture industry. Mostly, because we hear it everywhere! It is heard in work environments, shopping centers, grocery stores, radio, television, public events, etc. Considering the concept of muzak, originally created to increase worker production in factories, pop music is the new muzak. Employing major chord progressions (upbeat and happy sounds) and progressive beats (easy to shop and walk to), pop muzak provides a method to organize and increase our consumption and production.

Below is an illustration that comments on pop music. The authors, under the pseudonyms Yapfoo and Elephant, do not provide information about themselves. From the website, I concluded that they are most likely studying music as undergraduates, and this comic website is their mode of distraction and stress relief. Though not wholly sophisticated, I appreciated the childish look of the drawing in contrast to the direct manner in which the idea was conveyed.     

“Pachelbel 6”

http://muzak.smackjeeves.com/comics/408102/pachelbel-6/

Site copyrighted by Yapfoo and Elephant.

I was pleasantly surprised to have enjoyed this weeks readings as much as I had. I suppose from the the beginning I was just glad to be discussing art so directly, but particularly the second reading on the culture industry had me contemplating things that we face in our everyday life so often that it was hard not to be interested and find my own examples of what he was discussing. But not to jump the gun, how about a bit of Aesthetic Theory first?

This reading I felt was a good introduction to Adorno’s perspective on art and his reactions to other theories in regards to art (specifically Kant and Freud). He assessed art as being both beyond and of this world. Claiming freedom from reality while being chained to it at the same time. He also claimed art to be a reflection of it’s time or reaction to and is more than an aesthetic creation. He argues the importance of the life of the art in that it can speak what nature and humans can’t, instead of the creation of the art being important. This last statement, in particular, I find to be very true. It is through art that I often try to communicate the things that I can’t put easily to words, if at all (partially why I at times find it difficult to discuss my work).

With these aspects of Adorno’s point of view in mind, I jumped pleasantly to the second reading. Very early on in this work I was interested in the subject. He introduces the term “culture industry” as having been created by Horkheimer and himself, as a means of describing what many may now refer to as pop cultural products, or standardized cultural products. Due to the heavily “pop culture” obsessed society I live in, I would find it difficult not to relate to and think of many examples of the culture industry products of which he spoke.

He wrote of the culture industry creating products for mass profit value, not as a value of content. It sells “sameness” in a new way. Culture industry technique differs from art technique in that art is concerned with the “inner logic” of the art object, where the culture industry is “one of distribution and mechanical reproduction”. It’s concern is mass distribution and consumption (with the result being capital profit) instead of concern for the content or result of the object created.

The culture industry products he described of his time all exist in some form (if not nearly the same form) today: “pocket novels, films off the rack, family television shows… advice to the love lorn and horoscope columns”. Perhaps making their distribution that much more potent is the easy accessibility of such materials today, particularly with the Internet. You can get access to any of these same products nearly instantly and in massive amounts at any time.

He argues that said products offer only a picture of a world with flat problems with uselessly uncomplicated solutions. The advice or wisdom offered by such products is “vacuous, banal or worse and the behavior patterns are shamelessly conformist”. He goes further to state that the public is indeed aware of the blandness, but begin to develop a sense of dread at the thought of how boring their lives would be without such products of which they have been prescribed to enjoy. This reminds me of how panicked I got when I first decided I couldn’t afford cable TV anymore. I had grown up with it all my life and after 22 years, I really thought I would go crazy without such “enjoyment” in my life, though I was aware of how much it sucked my time away uselessly (”desire a deception which is nonetheless transparent to them”).

Adorno concludes that the effects of the culture industry are to replace consciousness with conformity. Though I have to state that I do believe there are TV programs, films (especially films) and fiction novels that don’t fit this description; I can recall times I physically felt dumber from spending a full day with the tv or watching a Steven Seagal movie or reading Danielle Steel (okay I have never don’t the last one, but I imagine the effects to be the same), so that brings many questions to mind. Why in the world have I participated in the consumption of such products? I think for myself, I have participated in such to “relax” or not have to think for a time, but should that be a goal? Should I allow myself to “not think” and what effect does that have on me to do so? Is it just a conscious version of taking a nap, or does it rob us of more than sleeping would? I don’t claim to have answers, but I think the consideration is important and may have serious implications both on our society and our decisions as individuals.

I haven’t watched family sitcoms in a long while, so my example of banal tv is a bit old. While reading this last article, episodes of “Full House” kept popping into my brain in which the kids would get into some shenanigans and it would all be wrapped up with Daddy Tanner telling them the most moot useless of reasons behind a kind of moral. I think even as a kid I felt my brain turning to squishy moosh as I watched and I recall hating it and yet watching probably every episode at least once. So here is a clip of from Full House, which was an ABC comedy that ran from 1987-1995 . Let’s find out why too much of anything is a bad thing and why we should be ourselves, que the sappy music…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZuVvpdTu1s

Adorno’s “Aesthetic Theory: On The Relation Between Art and Society” and “Culture Industry Reconsidered” ask courageous, much avoided questions in regards to high art and it’s “enemy,” low art. We consider the purpose for creating art in the first place and what our hopes are for the work we produce. Then, we consider how culture industry, or that which is a poor substitute for art, pollutes the mind and destroys all hopes for intellectual development. Although they shed light on the corrosive forces of cultural industry, these articles don’t challenge artists to be more accountable for their products in their relationship to the consumer. Adorno, in short, does not bestow enough responsibility on the masses but condemns the industry, which sees a demand for “goods” and is simply supplying them in exchange for other “goods”. In response, the masses can and should exercise discernment when confronted with cultural industry.

He begins by encouraging the idea of art works having a life sui generis, that is, of its own. Works have an inner constitution, a soul—this is why they can exist on their own and produce infinite amounts of meaning. The life sui generis is evident in the way works of art can communicate what we, humans, simply cannot. A turn off to some, the idea that art works can “supposedly” elevate and do a bunch of other glorious things is difficult to understand because those glorious things are never tangible, verifiable, observational or empirical, as Adorno would say. Adorno offers this: “art seeks blissfully or unhappily, to seclude itself from the world.” The irony of art (and the reason why it is so incredibly beneficial to humans) is that it must remove itself from the realms of the rational and empirical, the real, to passionately dive into the deliciously inexplicable realm of unseen truth. It teaches us how to get the most out of existing in the world: we must stand back sometimes but also jump into the uncomfortable. In the end, we must have something to say. Art is subjective and objective at the same time.

Adorno brings up teleology, the idea that everything that exists, including humans and art, moves unconsciously toward an end at which self-actualization occurs. He explains that productive forces of labor and art have the same teleology, that is, they both move toward self-realization—a greater good. However, he continues in “Cultural Industry Reconsidered”, cultural industry acts as hindrance to that movement because it limits intellectual development instead of elevating it.

Cultural industry, what I understood to be the industry that responds to culture by accommodating its needs but not necessarily considering ultimate, teleological, goods, is bad, according to Adorno. It is bad because it brings up issues of efficacy, calculation and technique—all which, according to Adorno, dismiss all that is “good” about high art.  Adorno describes at great length the pernicious, abominable forces of  “pocket novels, films off the rack, family television shows, horoscopes,” etc.

While I agree that these exist and they do hinder our progress as a human race, Adorno’s comments are too all-encompassing and declarative.  At one point he announces that conformity, which he’s assumed applies to everyone, “replaces consciousness.” This is a bold statement considering that consciousness indicates awareness which is the basis for existence.  He is correct in pointing out the damaging effects that cultural industry has on art and humans but he does not mention our intellectual accountabilities. We have the ability, neigh,  responsibility, to discern.

We can choose what to absorb and what to reject. Adorno does not push for that enough. We are not as “condemned,” as Adorno describes because we occasionally watch a B movie, or momentarily dance to stupid music, or cease to live up to our intellectual standards for 15 minutes. On the other hand, we do have a responsibility to use our education to its full potential and exercise discernment and selection. And, yes, we should do it a lot more often lest “superman that hoe” becomes an acceptable idea and Soulja Boy’s dance replaces a potentially rich heritage and culture.

In case you are not familiar with Soulja Boy and his dance I have posted a video. Yes, Soulja Boy is actually a legitimate musical artist in his genre. More importantly, I thought it would be interesting for you to see how Urban Dictionary describes the phrase “superman dat hoe.” Urban Dictionary is an online, collaborative dictionary that defines slang terms that are not found in actual dictionaries. If anything, the information posted on this website reflects the intellectual activity of a great number of both educated and uneducated persons. Most 8 year olds that live in downtown Lafayette are familiar with this phrase and dance and it is frequently incorporated into their daily routines. By the way, this particular genre, is by no means the only genre that is guilty.

Crank That by Soulja Boy

Urban Dictionary

The first reading by Adorno was very difficult for me to follow.  The study of aesthetics has many ideas so between trying to use my previous knowledge about this subject and understand Adorno’s point was unsettling for me.  My undergraduate studies in art education included a quick introduction to aesthetics since discipline-based art education is supposed to include this aspect in teaching art.   I have no experience studying aesthetics in terms of critical theory.  I may have inadvertently studied both only not known that that was what I was doing.

My first experience with aesthetics as a study was through reading excerpts of John Dewey’s “Art as Experience”.  Recalling Dewey’s work I remembered how inspiring he was to me as an educator.  He was instrumental in seeing the individual in the classroom and how this individual’s experiences affected his/her performance.  His insight into culture and education was also very interesting.  Dewey tied aesthetic experiences into education.  Dewey believed that people need to experience art and have aesthetic experiences towards art.  As I began looking up “Art as Experience” I began to wonder how Dewey and Adorno might compare.  My first sense of Adorno was that he was critical and negative.  I find Dewey more enlightening.   I wanted to spend more time on this subject but then realized that I need to continue my reading.  After spending lots of time re-reading this first article this is what I got out of it.

Adorno states that works of art can communicate internally and externally and art seems to try to come out of the norm but in doing so just returns to the status quo.  Adorno seems to theorize that art is an artifact yet art also only has to say what is already being said.  The difference he finds in art and humans is that art can communicate in “ways nature and man cannot.”  So like man, art is thinking it is trying something new or doing something cutting-edge when really it is just a regurgitating of something already said or done.  The artist is a conformist.  This article was difficult to read and Adorno seems to talk in circles.  I did find the comparison of Kant and Freud interesting.   Freud and Kant agreed that art is subjective and “art exists only in relation to the individual who contemplates or produces it.”   Where they differ is in the psychoanalytical view of art.  Obviously, Freud finds subconscious, dream-like ideas in art and Kant as well as Adorno seems to disagree with this view. 

The second reading “Culture Industry Reconsidered” was a bit easier to read and what I found is that Adorno believes that culture industry is about conformity.  “The power of the culture industries ideology is such that conformity has replaced consciousness.”  There is a definite need to conform to fit into society.  Being in a classroom I see this everyday.  I do not believe that conformity means you have no sense of reality or consciousness.  There is individuality within this conformity.  We do have to have some sense of order to survive and our schools would not succeed without students conforming.  I do not find this as a negative in all aspects.   As an educator I have to have order yet it is also my job to bring out the uniqueness of the individual whenever possible.  It is important that children understand that it is ok to be different however or whatever that might mean. 

In the area of art conforming is evident also.  As artists we want to do something different but we are bound by rules and regulations.  Whether it is the rules of the gallery we want to show in or the rules of the school we are attending, or the guidelines of what the masses see as “beautiful”.   What is the purpose of our creations and how does conformity affect our purpose? 

There are instances where if we do not conform we will not survive either emotionally/mentally.  There are some instances where non-conformity can cause physical danger.  There is a sense of belonging, a sense of survival that goes with conforming.  Conforming may seem restrictive and boring.  Yet there can be uniqueness in conformity and I believe we see this everyday. 

This web site gives information about Dewey and also ties him to some people in our readings.