Individual vs Society

Ana the Ist said:

Hello all,

Its been awhile since I've created a thread so I decided to attempt to start a conversation about this topic which I've thought much about for some time. I'm not sure how successful it will be here since its not really a particularly lofty topic like so many created for discussion here in the philosophy section...but let's give it a shot, shall we?

It appears to me that one of the natural dichotomies of mankind is the individual vs society (or the group...it need not be an entire society as the word is commonly used). A lot can be said about the benefits of one over the other. I'm presenting them as opposites of each other, although their interests often overlap, because frankly it's a more interesting conversation this way.

The U.S. (my homeland) holds the individual up in the highest esteem. Indeed, it's often argued that my nation is founded upon the idea of the individual unfettered by restrictions and allowed to rise to the dizzying heights of the greatest achievements as an exercise of his own ambition, desire, and free will. The notion of all working together, as a group, united towards the same goals and same purpose is often looked down upon (as something embodied by socialism). It's a cultural notion that I've had to seriously reconsider in order to get past the propaganda, this cult of the individual we worship at, this paradise of the soloist. Is it really preferable?

On the other hand we the idea that mankind is at its best, it's strongest, it's most ideal, when we all work together. When each of us acts as a cog in the great machine of humanity, not standing out necessarily, but humbly striving towards what's considered best for all. "What's best for all" can be a nebulous, fuzzy notion...ever present and yet ever changing...but no matter the direction it can be argued we're at our best when marching in the same direction. What we can achieve together always seems greater than what the individual can achieve alone...

So what do you favor poster...and why? Is it more important to foster a culture that celebrates the individual and what he can achieve when the rest of us don't hold him back? Or is it more important to foster the development of the group and a sense of unity so that together we can all take steps forward...as one with none left behind?

And why?

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I favor a society in which the individual and his or her rights is the standard of the good. I hate the idea of anyone being considered a cog in a machine. Cogs are interchangeable and can be discarded and replaced. I think the only moral society is one that holds individual rights as absolutes. I believe that society can be a great value if it operates on the trader principle. All Human transactions should be win-win. I believe in mutual trade to mutual benefit. If one party must lose in order for the other party to gain, then it is not a trade but a master and slave or eater and eaten relationship. A society which treats its members as a means to the ends of others is doomed to fail. A society which treats each member as sovereign owners of their lives and property is the only moral society.

United States used to be a country which respected the individual but it has changed immensely in just my lifetime. I'm 48 now and I hardly recognize it. In its original founding principles it was the only moral country in the history of the world. But that country is gone now. There are still remnants of individualism left but they are fading. The seeds of this were there at the founding. The men who created this country had the right ideas politically but they did not have a moral code to go with them. They were steeped in the morality of selflessness and sacrifice and that was the doom of this country. We are moving at an ever quickening pace away from individualism and capitalism towards collectivism and central planning and It makes me want to weep. But I don't think that it will last much longer. The whole world is heading for a cliff. What has been done in the name of egalitarianism is an abomination. Capitalism is the system that is consistent with individual rights. Capitalism has brought more people out of poverty and improved the lives of everyone including the poorest, than any other system in history, even though it has only been implemented partially. Yet the West is abandoning it. Why? Because, it is incompatible with the dominant moral code in the world, the code of selflessness. The basic principle of this code is that man has no right to live for his own sake, that his purpose is to serve others.

Until we and the rest of the world adopt the principle that each man has a right to live for his own sake and that no man is the means to the ends of others then we will keep heading for that cliff.

I´m not really seeing the dichotomy. It´s in the interest of the individuals to care for the wellbeing of the system(s) they´re part of, and it´s in the best interest of the system to allow for individuals to have their needs met.
Thus, instead of an either-or this is a case to case question and a matter of degree. As far as I know, even in the USofA there´s quite some legislative/economic/moralist effort to protect the community against "undue" individual behaviour (and in some fields it´s even uncomparably stricter than in, say, Western Europe).
So the question is merely "What is 'undue'?".

Ana the Ist said:

It's a difficult topic for me to frame correctly...and if anyone who gets it thinks that they can do better, I'd be very appreciative.

I guess I'm speaking about more of a cultural ideological phenomenon than actual reality. Your post is dead-on quatona...it's not as if in reality one can exist independent of the other or even without any interaction between the two.

However, when you read someone like True Scots' post...I imagine you can get the sense of what I'm speaking about. Individualism has been raised up in the U.S. as some sort of ideal we should all (ironically) aspire to. The cultural opposite might be a nation like Japan where individualism is something to be avoided almost shamefully...as the strength of a well conceived/managed team is the ideal in that culture. Germany, perhaps, has struck a more realistic balance between the two ideals.

Again, it's not that the dichotomy exists in reality...but I think it exists between the ideals and ideologies behind them.

Does that kind of make sense?

Click to expand...

Kind of - but then again: not really.

I don´t think we can frame anything "correctly". And I think ideals and ideologies don´t exist in reality any more than dichotomies do. They are both made of the same cloth.

In my understanding, it´s more like: The way we frame things determines our thinking about them. The categories we consider significant will determine the results of our thinking. (E.g. if "race" is a significant trait to you for categorizing humans, this will show up in the results of your considerations. Or: if selfish vs. selflessis a valid, significant distinction to you, the results of your thinking will be determined by it.)

Thus, when e.g. True Scot praises American brand individualism, my response is not an antagonistic: No, we need more community-oriented ideals.
My response is: I don´t believe in the antagonism that your (and your opponents´) thinking is based upon.
From my perspective, it creates the problem it´s meant to solve.

On another note, I am not sure that those cultural differences between e.g. America and Japan are actually founded in the individual vs. team dichotomy. Rather, I tend towards the notion that the different emphases in this issue are owed to and the result of deeper cultural differences, values etc. Not that I could present an analysis, though - I am not sufficiently familiar with either culture.

As to USofA vs. Germany: I am not convinced that there´s a better balance over here. You have "small government" in certain issues where we have "big government" and vice versa. [I never believed this "small government!!" slogan American conservative turbo-capitalists have chosen for their motto: They have absolutely no problem with and actually demand "big government" when it comes to certain issues. Plus, they can be very quick to abandon individual liberties for the sake of what they consider society´s best interests.] The balance is just different, and, personally, I find these actual differences more interesting than more or less empty slogans.
Americans pay taxes, Germans pay taxes (and taxes are a concrete prime example for the idea that the individual has to "sacrifice" some of their individual wants to the community). It gets interesting when we start asking: What does the average American feel taxes should be spent on, and how does the average German answer this question?

Hi, Ana, Interesting topic. I think individual freedom is of the highest importance; and I don't believe that individual freedom and a sense of unity are opposed to each other. Hope your thread produces some good replies!

Ana the Ist said:

Hello all,

Its been awhile since I've created a thread so I decided to attempt to start a conversation about this topic which I've thought much about for some time. I'm not sure how successful it will be here since its not really a particularly lofty topic like so many created for discussion here in the philosophy section...but let's give it a shot, shall we?

It appears to me that one of the natural dichotomies of mankind is the individual vs society (or the group...it need not be an entire society as the word is commonly used). A lot can be said about the benefits of one over the other. I'm presenting them as opposites of each other, although their interests often overlap, because frankly it's a more interesting conversation this way.

The U.S. (my homeland) holds the individual up in the highest esteem. Indeed, it's often argued that my nation is founded upon the idea of the individual unfettered by restrictions and allowed to rise to the dizzying heights of the greatest achievements as an exercise of his own ambition, desire, and free will. The notion of all working together, as a group, united towards the same goals and same purpose is often looked down upon (as something embodied by socialism). It's a cultural notion that I've had to seriously reconsider in order to get past the propaganda, this cult of the individual we worship at, this paradise of the soloist. Is it really preferable?

On the other hand we the idea that mankind is at its best, it's strongest, it's most ideal, when we all work together. When each of us acts as a cog in the great machine of humanity, not standing out necessarily, but humbly striving towards what's considered best for all. "What's best for all" can be a nebulous, fuzzy notion...ever present and yet ever changing...but no matter the direction it can be argued we're at our best when marching in the same direction. What we can achieve together always seems greater than what the individual can achieve alone...

So what do you favor poster...and why? Is it more important to foster a culture that celebrates the individual and what he can achieve when the rest of us don't hold him back? Or is it more important to foster the development of the group and a sense of unity so that together we can all take steps forward...as one with none left behind?

And why?

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Ana the Ist said:

The U.S. (my homeland) holds the individual up in the highest esteem. Indeed, it's often argued that my nation is founded upon the idea of the individual unfettered by restrictions and allowed to rise to the dizzying heights of the greatest achievements as an exercise of his own ambition, desire, and free will...

Click to expand...

The irony is that it is Americans taking advantage of that idea of the individual being unfettered by restrictions and exercising their own ambition, desire and free will who are now telling us that free will is an illusion.

Ana the Ist said:

So what do you favor poster...and why? Is it more important to foster a culture that celebrates the individual and what he can achieve when the rest of us don't hold him back? Or is it more important to foster the development of the group and a sense of unity so that together we can all take steps forward...as one with none left behind?

And why?

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

In Grassroots Post-Modernism: Remaking the Soil of Cultures, by Gustavo Esteva and Madhu Suri Prakash, the authors show how the Western emphasis on the self isolates people and makes them very lonely.

I would argue that a basic need that humans have is to feel liked and to feel included in something greater than their own selves.

For every need that the cult of the individual has breathtakingly met there is probably at least one need that it has left neglected or unmet.

I think that Ken Wilber's consciousness/ethical stages address it better than any other source that I have encountered.

If he is right, we are not meant to be partially, let alone completely, stuck in the narcissism of an infant or the ethnocentrism of someone like a patriotic U.S. citizen--we are meant to graduate to a worldcentric stage and many beyond that.

I think we are "wired to our own being" first and foremost. So if we are care for the value of being, then primarily the focus is on "our personal world".