Going against the grain

I was attending a conference last week where I heard a couple of talks on the topic of 'social norms'. I have heard about the nature of social norms and the speakers have attempted to argue about why we follow social norms. What I think may be more interesting, which has not been discussed, is why some people like to go against social norms. There must be a benefit in not complying to social norms because the norms are the standard way of acting, so there must be a conscious effort to avoid the [internalised] norms. What is this benefit? If there is no benefit then is the person not acting rationally?

To follow social norms is to become a member of a society. Therefore to not follow is to move away from society — either to distance oneself from the society or in order to change the society. It is clear that some groups want to change social norms or change society, for example: women rightfully standing up against society to gain the right to vote.

However, there is another group that do not follow social norms because there is another benefit other than changing society. This is the personal benefit of standing out in the society — being unique. At the current time, society somehow respects people who 'go against the grain' and we see them as powerful. It seems to be a great time to be different.