There are those for whom the gulf between convention and corruption is one between right and wrong; for others it is merely the gap between convenience and opinion. Corruption is in many instances of society solely in the eyes of the beholder. Otherwise than its absolute degeneracy, corruption so-called may amount to no more than dissimilarity or divergence, a modification rather than an impurity of the other. Nonetheless the question whether one stands against something or comes together is in the result frequently considered the paradigm of orthodox social conduct. The issue accordingly is not one of propriety per se so much as a scheme of utility; that is, there can be no question that if we were all to behave in the identical manner we would ostensibly and perhaps axiomatically overcome any conflict or confusion of thought and performance.  Consequently same is good; difference is bad.

Escalating one’s purity of thought in the interest of aligning the troops is accordingly a pragmatic decision at the outset. It may however require protocol or magic to promote the appearance of indefeasibility or inviolability. Accommodation is by definition inconvenient and contrary to the singular model of behaviour. A war machine is for that reason the ideal example of convention and convenience, its untroubled unique direction and purpose. War does however customarily have unmitigated ambition with little room for tolerance of anything standing in its way. War is not therefore an ideal of perfection so much as of defeat. Regrettably war is frequently the ultimate criterion of sustainability. So taken to its extreme it is a poor model of conduct (except of course for autocrats).

Insisting upon indifference only as a fallback resolution does not strengthen the intermediate resolve; rather it defers or disguises the consideration. Yet the principle of acceptance and accommodation is seldom influential in an expository sense. The more commanding elements of survival, food, home and water, can often collide with esoteric considerations of human society (things like pronouns). Seldom do intellectual differences promote primitive corporate desires whose preponderance wins by weight of argument alone.

Conventional society is a massive locomotive engine bearing down one track in one direction to one destination. To its credit it normally bears a healthy cargo of less than bespoke but nonetheless tolerable products for hoi poloi. Though convention is nothing more than the way things are usually done, it quickly becomes elevated by alternatives such as custom and tradition. Those words, apart from being a distinction without a difference, are more importantly an intended deceit and a pretence. They translate one’s agenda of success and possible celebrity to others as though it were an expression of divine ceremony and etiquette. Convention soon becomes further embellished with drama, regiment, pageantry and uniforms. Regrettably much of convention survives not only upon its adherence (religious, racial, sexual and otherwise) but also upon its contradiction of the same identities.

Thucydides has been called the father of the school of political realism, which views the political behavior of individuals and the subsequent outcomes of relations between states as ultimately mediated by, and constructed upon, fear and self-interest.

Because of the longstanding proof of association of convention with corruption (the strictly criminal element) and the indisputable alliance between it and the vitiation, the two are thus a composite of political, religious and commercial successes. This sadly does nothing to improve the tolerance of change or diversity (which, by comparison, operate largely in an economic vacuum). The dissolution of that societal poison called convention is forever inhibited by the unsettling presumption of beneficence which I doubt very much exists or has anything other than moderate appeal to pompous zealots yet which is a popular though token pain relief.

As a result, if you’re on the corrupt and impure side of convention (that is, in matters of opinion or preference) it is likely you’ll encounter dispiriting obstacles on occasion. Interestingly however, and judging by what I’ve seen on social media, there is movement (not a movement) among young people which admits to far greater candidness about life than that to which I was accustomed when growing up. Whether this succeeds to refresh the landscape is another story.  The other problem is that unwittingly so many of us abide by tradition and convention without realizing the limitations we’ve imposed on ourselves both socially and intellectually. I suspect even the old fogeys among us have progressed past the commendation of corporeal punishment for school-aged children. Whether that gets us to transsexuals and evangelicals remains uncertain. Anglicans whom I know can be impressively dogmatic about sherry following matins!