Then, it seems to me, you are using ‘herd’ in a way I have never come across before. Usually the term herd, when referring to people in these kinds of contexts, means precisely that people do what other people do, not because it fits their own urges, interests, but because they are afraid to be individuals. I think this is where we ended up talking at cross purposes.
The answer to the first question is: it depends. If you really feel the urge to eat six smaller meals each day, but you keep stifling this urge because you don’t want to be weird, yes, you are conforming and it is herd behavior and likely is not good for your particular body. Rebelling in this context would be deciding like a teenager might to eat two meals a day because you know if you don’t eat breakfast it will piss mom off. For me non-herd behavior would be to actually be open to what your body wants and needs and feels right. This would be neither conforming - doing something simply because that is the way it is done out of anxiety of doing something else - nor rebelling. Driving on the right side of the road is a different kind of case. Here doing what other people do and expect is simply good common sense. If you think the English are wrong and stupid for driving on the other side of the road - or Americans from the other side of this, then you are probably a conformist, and a kind of odd fundamentalist.
Some things simply do not matter much and doing them is not contorting yourself to fit the norm.
OK. Good, this seems to nail down where we missed each other, or I missed you. To me then the word ‘herd’ is being stretched beyond useful meaning. It seems like you are saying, you are still human, rather than you are still part of the herd.
So being in the herd means being influenced by what other people do. By that definition I agree, we are then, in general, in the herd. Everyone is influenced to some degree by some other humans unless they are feral children. We cannot escape some influence, even if it becomes a trivial factor is certain or many decisions and attitudes. But on the eating issue and other specific issues one can reach decisions without regard for the rest of humanity. Without having a prime factor in our decisions being ‘I am scared not to conform’ or ‘not conforming is bad’. One can have the freedom and openness to base one’s decisions on oneself. Of course we see other people eat, we hear about it, we are still influenced, but the decision about what to do, I think, can be reached despite what become minor influences, which in this case are not reaching further than awareness of what other people do. Once one was, for example, comfortable not conforming with the norms.
To me once ‘herd’ is on the table, I take it to mean things like a person in the herd cannot make such decisions based on themselves.
You use the term differently and take any action or choice as being simply (even if a new and harmonious one to that individual) a choice by a member of the herd. A herd choice.
Every possible action reached via any possible process will be something someone in the herd has done.
I interpreted the word ‘herd’ the way it is used in these contexts. I did not put words in your mouth. (see below)
I don’t think they are using the term ‘herd’ like you do. At least some of them. I think some of them, at least, are using the term in the sense I am using it. I think they saw N as saying that portions of culture seek to drive a wedge between people and choices that would suit them better - the ideas in Christianity, for example around humility, sacrifice, keeping oneself small and meek. IOW they are not asserting that one becomes non-human or makes choices humans cannot make, but that within the set of choices, they are able to choose not out of fear of being bad or different or abnormal, but can choose or act more from their own urges as a full set - rather than simply the urge to be a part of what they mean by herd, to do what others do, etc.
I think that is a meaningful distinction and one that fits with the ‘herd’ metaphor. Humans are not herd animals - we can act in where I think the herd metaphor applies and act in ways (or really for reasons) where I think the herd metaphor does not apply.
Sure, though in a context where I am discussion conforming, rebelling and the possibility of something else, I use the term more restrictively.
Well, this is again confirmation of our split use of the term. For me we are not herd animals. I believe this refers to vegetarian non-primate quadruped mammals, usually grazers, that move in groups together - as part of a protective strategy - and have some degree of swarm behavior, physically present at nearly all times. Once that word is used for humans I assume it is a metaphor for ways we act like that - and generally in a pejorative sense - not because there is anything wrong with a herd animal being a herd animal, but for another species to act in this way all the time they are necessarily limiting or contorting themselves to fit a model against their best interests. When we are striving for not the best reasons to move and act like other humans. When our specie’s more complicated set of options are narrowed down to where the use of the ‘herd’ metaphor is applicable.
You seem to think this metaphor is applicable to every action or rather you seem to be using herd where I would use the term species or human.
No matter what a human does and regardless of the motivations they remain a part of the species. To use the word herd here seems odd to me. It is not literally true, since we are not herd animals. Metaphorically, especially given the way herd has been used in these kinds of discussions, it seems to raise connotations you don’t want. And call ‘putting words in your mouth’ when this happens.
I was not putting words in your mouth, but rather interpreting your posts as well as I could given the context and the general use of the metaphor ‘herd’ which is not the same as your use. I think if there had been some useful distinction or reason for using ‘herd’ in the way you do, I might also have at least understood you must mean something else. But as it is, I can see no reason for using the metaphor ‘herd’ the way you do. It seems a useless metaphor. Or thinking that we literally are herd animals.
In any case. Now we know where we missed each other. I am going to leave our discussion at that.