The question of conformity is a complex one. For cultures endorsing individualism, non-conformity is promoted as independence and innovation. For cultures endorsing collectivism, conformity is sanctified. This difference in approaching conformity is highlighted in handling dissent. More specifically, in expressing views not abiding by acceptable normative influence, dissenters are handled differently in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. For individualistic cultures (e.g. U.S.), dissenters, or whistleblowers, are differentially endorsed or rejected by boarder community based, primarily, on a given issue. For collectivistic cultures (e.g. Asian), however, dissenters are predominantly "brushed off" as outcasts, if not disrespectful to established conventional norms and native culture. This distinction between individualistic and collectivistic cultures on handling dissenters is not, in fact, straightforward. The case of Edward Snowden's revelations of NSA's "secret" documents is a case in point. Specifically, by opting to "come out" independently in order to expose a national agency's abuses, Snowden has been framed as dissenter, whistleblower, if not a spy. Notwithstanding a broad acceptance of dissent in U.S. culture (vis-à-vis conformity), Snowden represents an interesting case study of conformity in general and normative influence in particular. True, unfolding details about Snowden's revelations are still evolving. The main question for current purposes is, however, not about specific details of Snowden's disclosures but is, in fact, about Snowden's act of coming out as a form of non-conformity to an established culture of credibility of U.S. federal government. To better understand Snowden's act of non-conformity, a closer examination is required of how his act has come to highlight (non)conformity as a social behavior in current U.S. society. This paper aims, hence, to explore Edward Snowden's decision to reveal classified secrets as an act of non-conformity.
The decision by Edward Snowden, a former NSA analyst, to disclose agency's secret programs and communications on intercepting and/or storing personal information of U.S. and foreign citizens represents, if anything, an act of non-conformity to multiple stakeholders.
Having been a former, contracted NSA analyst, Snowden has not only chosen to part away with agency's set laws regulations but has, more significantly, broken U.S. law. In so doing, Snowden has made a (personal) case against his employer's rules. In justifying his decision, Snowden has emphasized across different (encrypted) platforms his deep, personal convictions of his employer's – and, for that matter, his federal government's – immoral conduct of violating privacy nationally and internationally. Given to clandestine and covert operations, NSA is an employer whom Snowden views (only in more recent years of his service) as unaccountable and should be exposed to public. By rejecting his employer's normative influence, Snowden is showing non-conformity at a professional level.
Personally, Snowden hails from a family of a long federal service history (Bamford, 2014). Indeed, Snowden admits in an extensive interview his expectation of pursuing a similar career path (Bamford). Endorsed by family and peers as outstanding, a career fro Snowden in computer field has been, moreover, conforming to both his personal passions and family's expectations (Bamford). By growing more and more "disillusioned", as he consistently emphasizes in his interviews, Snowden shows gradual signs of non-conformity to his own family's history of federal service. This disillusionment can be explained, if anything, by further exploring Snowden's own personal motivations and persuasions. In a nutshell, Snowden's personal act of dissent represents a "break" on an individual basis from his family's commitment – and, for that matter, conformity – to credibility of U.S. federal government. True, Snowden has been granted privileged access to national security information inaccessible to many, including his family members. However, Snowden – and probably few other co-workers – has chosen to come out and non-conform. Thus, in his very individual act of non-conformity, Snowden has "stretched" his own clan's capacity for non-conformity. Put differently, in a culture largely characterized by comparative non-conformity and a unique emphasis on individualism, Snowden's exceptional act of disclosing his employer's national secrets represents, if anything, an instance of non-conformity to his inner circle's (i.e. his family's) normative influence. This personal act of non-conformity is manifest in "disapprovals" of Snowden's revelations by broad sectors of U.S. society, particularly older generations. Specifically, by framing his act as "unpatriotic", Snowden is endorsed as a dissenter, not a whistleblower.
This broad view of Snowden as unpatriotic highlights an underlying cultural characteristic of conformity in U.S. As noted, U.S. culture is an individualistic culture celebrating difference and independence. Further, an individual's right to non-conform is, indeed, a scared right guaranteed by U.S. Constitution and cherished by U.S. society at large. However, non-conformity in a U.S. is context-specific. That is, non-conformity is not a "free pass" individuals can exercise all along but is, in fact, informed by deeply-seated, collective values. Like all communities, U.S. society is one bound collectively, if less compared to collectivistic cultures, by values surfacing more prominently during national crises or risks. The case for a national security risk cannot be overemphasized. Indeed, U.S. society is most united over history by "clear and present dangers" risking U.S. national security. This has been proven most applicable after 9/11 events in showing acts of solidarity by, for example, hanging flags in public and private places, volunteering for community service and, not least, reporting "suspicious" conduct.
In current case, Snowden has chosen to run against deep-rooted sentiments of patriotism by showing his non-conformity. True, antagonism to U.S. has been a constant since country's foundation. However, mainstream sentiments – and, for that matter, values – remain anchored to a broad faith in federal government, particularly during periods of national security risks. This state of "inconclusive" non-conformity, so to speak, is illustrated by positions assumed by current presidential candidates, particularly Bernie Sanders (Gipple, 2016).
If anything, Sanders appears ambivalent about his position about Snowden. Instead of endorsing or rejecting Snowden's action, Sanders offers a Yes-and-No answer by endorsing Snowden's ethical conduct of exposing NSA's violations but rejecting his illegal acts of (Gipple). True, Sanders is, after all, in a middle of presidential campaign and his ambivalence is understandable. Still, his very endorsement of Snowden's action represents a departure from mainstream culture. Ironically, Sanders is himself viewed as a non-mainstream political figure and his position about Snowden, of all presidential candidates, may represent an equally anomalous position. Then again, such an endorsement by a presidential candidate indicates, if anything, how Snowden's non-conformity is at best controversial, runs against established norms but also, significantly, anticipates deeper changes in U.S. society on what actually counts as dissident or, for that matter, unpatriotic.
In a final analysis, (non)conformity is not a clear-cut value adopted by different communities non-differentially. If anything, acts of (non)conformity are negotiable and are subject to change as communities evolve and develop new conceptualizations of (in)dependent citizenship.
References
Bamford, J. (2014, August). The Most Wanted Man in the World. Wired. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/
Gipple, T. (2016, March 5). Why Won't Bernie Sanders Support Edward Snowden? The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
