Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I read the article (if I got the link right). I think what the writer is missing is that individualism vs. collectivism is really just a proxy for 'voluntary' vs. 'coerced.' Under individualism, there is nothing stopping people from joining together voluntarily to form organized communities, whether bowling leagues, temperance leagues, or anti-Walmart leagues. But it is strictly on a voluntary basis, so that if I decide that I want to bowl alone, binge drink, and shop at Walmart, I may do so.
Under collectivism, the decision to organize is made at the collective level (e.g. by voting, or by decree of the ruler), and the individual then is coerced into participation, whether he likes it or not.
If I understand the writer correctly, he basically wants an individualist approach, but with more voluntarily organized communities that could engage in problem solving. Fair enough, but he really has not escaped from the same old paradigm of individualism vs. collectivism.
Good point - BUT - His point is that since there aren't very many strong intermediate institutions anymore (communities, neighborhoods, churches, etc) the individual simply doesn't have the capacity to live in a community which can actually take care of itself. It's not a matter of just getting involved with things, it's a way of life that simply does not exist anymore.
It exists as an abstract construct. It is used to argue for real laws (or lack of laws) that are really enforced, so in that sense it does exist. Individualism does not mean that we all go off and live as Robinson Crusoe( ♪♪'as primitive as can be'♪♪). It basically means that decisions are left in the hands of the individual where possible.
For example, around 1920 the US collectively decided to take away the decision of whether to drink alcohol from the individual. Instead, the collective decided for the individual, and the decision was a big fat "NO." It didn't work out well, and a few years later the power to decide was returned to the individual.
Good point - BUT - His point is that since there aren't very many strong intermediate institutions anymore (communities, neighborhoods, churches, etc) the individual simply doesn't have the capacity to live in a community which can actually take care of itself. It's not a matter of just getting involved with things, it's a way of life that simply does not exist anymore.
Note that the intermediate institutions that he does mention were all on a voluntary basis (family, church, class). No adults were ever forced to participate in these, at least in the US. In fact the right not to do so is implicit in the First Amendment.
If these institutions have disappeared, or at least become greatly weakened, how do we get them back? If we pursue a solution that preserves their voluntary nature, that is an individualist approach. If we coerce people into participation (i.e. taxing them, mandating them, etc), then it's a collectivist solution. So we're right back to the individualist/collectivist paradigm from which the writer says he wants to escape.
Note that the intermediate institutions that he does mention were all on a voluntary basis (family, church, class). No adults were ever forced to participate in these, at least in the US. In fact the right not to do so is implicit in the First Amendment.
If these institutions have disappeared, or at least become greatly weakened, how do we get them back? If we pursue a solution that preserves their voluntary nature, that is an individualist approach. If we coerce people into participation (i.e. taxing them, mandating them, etc), then it's a collectivist solution. So we're right back to the individualist/collectivist paradigm from which the writer says he wants to escape.
That's only true if "Individualism" is just another word for free will, or freedom from the government. I don't think that's quite right. I think the author, and perhaps this is what Robert Nisbit does as well, understands individualism as a cultural force which demands "freedom" from religion, church, or neighborhood, which today people either think are bigoted or outdated.
I wish there was a stronger point about how we could get these back, but perhaps the point is that the way people live today it simply isn't possible.
Here's how New York Times' Ross Douthat put it once -
"But from the Protestant Reformation onward, individualism and centralization would advance together, while intermediate powers and communities either fell away or were dissolved. As social institutions, these associations would be attacked as inhumane, irrational, patriarchal, and tyrannical; as sources of political and economic power, they would be dismissed as outdated, fissiparous, and inefficient. In place of a web of overlapping communities and competing authorities, the liberal West set out to build a society of self-sufficient, liberated individuals, overseen by an unitary, rational, and technocratic government.
The assumption, indeed, was that the emancipated individual required a strong state, to cut through the constraining tissue of intermediate associations. “Only with an absolute sovereign,” Nisbet writes, describing the views of Thomas Hobbes, “could any effective environment of individualism be possible.”"
That’s simply not happening in this day and age because we’re more likely to feel an attachment to the people on reality TV shows than our own neighbors.
The shaping society in a way that is just and ordered, where the poor are taken care of and the lonely can feel included and a sense of self-worth, will only happen when individuals feel a duty to take care of more than just themselves, and have the means to do it through more than just government and politics.
That is the way I see it as well. Some people live as if the world revolved around them. They don't want to realize that belonging to a society is in our genes. Being very individualistic is not seldom a big step towards being antisocial.
Maybe that extreme individualism comes from exaggerate competition, as that divides people into winners and losers. Like a war, me against the rest.
Also, the knowledge that there is no security (which is much stronger in the US than in many other countries) may lead to people being more egoistic as everyone is afraid they will lose what they have gained.
The debate is about a false dichotomy. Neither are mutually exclusive so-called collectivism or individualism are mutually exclusive. Humans are by nature a "collectivist species" our very survival has and will always depend upon it. By the same token individualism is a natural and necessary attribute of human existence. The only issue is how to balance the two so that one doesn't blot out the other. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.
Took the words from my mouth (or keyboard, in this case.)
Liberals believe in individualism and libertarians believe the government is needed when they don't like something.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
