Commenting on the many economic and social problems that American society now confronts, Newsweek columnist Robert J. Samuelson recently wrote: ‘We face a choice between a society where people accept modest sacrifices for a common good or a more contentious society where groups selfishly protect their own benefits.’ Newsweek is not the only voice calling for a recognition of and commitment to the ‘common good.’ Daniel Callahan, an expert on bioethics, argues that solving the current crisis in our health care system — rapidly rising costs and dwindling access — requires replacing the current ‘ethic of individual rights’ with an ‘ethic of the common good.’
Appeals to the common good have also surfaced in discussions of business’ social responsibilities, discussions of environmental pollution, discussions of our lack of investment in education, and discussions of the problems of crime and poverty. Everywhere, it seems, social commentators are claiming that our most fundamental social problems grow out of a widespread lack of commitment to the common good, coupled with an equally widespread pursuit of individual interests.
What exactly is ‘the common good,’ and why has it come to have such a critical place in current discussions of problems in our society? The common good is a notion that originated over two thousand years ago in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. More recently, the contemporary ethicist, John Rawls, defined the common good as ‘certain general conditions that are . . . equally to everyone’s advantage.’ The Catholic religious tradition, which has a long history of struggling to define and promote the common good, defines it as ‘the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment.’ The common good, then, consists primarily of having the social systems, institutions, and environments on which we all depend work in a manner that benefits all people. Examples of particular common goods or parts of the common good include an accessible and affordable public health care system, an effective system of public safety and security, peace among the nations of the world, a just legal and political system, an unpolluted natural environment, and a flourishing economic system. Because such systems, institutions, and environments have such a powerful impact on the well-being of members of, society, it is no surprise that virtually every social problem in one way or another is linked to how well tines systems and institutions are functioning.
As these examples suggest, the common good doe not just happen. Establishing and maintaining the common good requires the cooperative efforts of some, often of many, people. Just as keeping a park free of litter depends on each user picking up after himself, so also maintaining the social conditions from which we all benefit requires the cooperative efforts of citizens. But these efforts pay off, for the common good is a good to which all members of society have access, and from whose enjoyment no one can be easily excluded. All persons for example, enjoy the benefits of clean air or an unpolluted environment, or any of our society’s other common goods. In fact, something counts as a common good only to the extent that it is a good to which all have access.
It might seem that since all citizens benefit from the common good, we would all willingly respond to urgings that we each cooperate to establish and maintain the common good. But numerous observers have identified a number of obstacles that hinder us, as a society, from successfully doing so.
First, according to some philosophers, the very idea of a common good is inconsistent with a pluralistic society like ours. Different people have different ideas abut what is worthwhile or what constitutes ‘the good life for human beings,’ differences that have increased during the last few decades as the voices of more and more previously silenced groups, such as women and minorities have been heard. Given these differences, some people urge, it will be impossible for us to agree on what particular kind of social systems, institutions, and environment we will all pitch in to support. And even if we agree upon what we all valued, we would certainly disagree about the relative values things have for us. While a may agree, for example, that an affordable health system a healthy educational system, and a clean environment are all parts of the common good, some will say the, more should be invested in health than in education, while others will favor directing resources to the environment over both health and education. Such disagreements are bound to undercut our ability to evoke a sustained and widespread commitment to the common good. In the face of such pluralism, efforts to bring about the common good can only lead to adopting or promoting the views of some, while excluding others, violating the principle of treating people equally. Moreover, such efforts would force everyone to support some specific notion of the common good, violating the freedom of those who do not share in that goal, and inevitably leading to paternalism (imposing one group’s preference on others), tyranny, and oppression.
A second problem encountered by proponents of the common good is what is sometimes called the ‘freerider problem.’ The benefits that a common good provides are, as we noted, available to everyone, including those who choose not to do their part to maintain the common good. Individuals can become ‘free riders’ by taking the benefits the common good provides while refusing to do their part to support the common good. An adequate water supply, for example, is a common good from which all people benefit. But to maintain an adequate supply of water during a drought, people must conserve water, which entails sacrifices. Some individuals may be reluctant to do their share, however, since they know that so long as enough other people conserve, they can enjoy the benefits without reducing their own consumption. If enough people become free riders in this way, the common good which depends on their support will be destroyed. Many observers believe that this is exactly what has happened to many of our common goods, such as the environment or education, where the reluctance of all persons to support efforts to maintain the health of these systems has led to their virtual collapse.
The third problem encountered by attempts to promote the common good is that of individualism. Our historical traditions place a high value on individual freedom, on personal rights, and on allowing each person to ‘do her own thing.’ Our culture views society as comprised of separate independent individuals who are free to pursue their own individual goals and interests without interference from others. In this individualistic culture it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to convince people that they should sacrifice some of their freedom, some of their personal goals, and some of their self-interest, for the sake of the ‘common good.’ Our cultural traditions, in fact, reinforce the individual who thinks that she should not have to contribute to the community’s common good, but should be left free to pursue her own personal ends.
Finally, appeals to the common good are confronted by the problem of an unequal sharing of burdens. Maintaining a common good often requires that particular individuals or particular groups bear costs that are much greater than those borne by others. Maintaining an unpolluted environment, for example, may require that particular firms that pollute install costly pollution control devices, undercutting profits. Making employment opportunities more equal may require that some groups, such as white males, sacrifice their own employment chances. Making the health system affordable and accessible to all may require that insurers accept lower premiums, that physicians accept lower salaries, or that those with particularly costly diseases or conditions forego the medical treatment on which their lives depend. Forcing particular groups or individuals to carry such unequal burdens ‘for the sake of the common good,’ is, at least arguably, unjust. Moreover, the prospect of having to carry such heavy and unequal burdens leads such groups and individuals to resist any attempts to secure common goods.
All of these problems pose considerable obstacles to those who call for an ethic of the common good. Still, appeals to the common good ought not to be dismissed. For they urge us to reflect on broad questions concerning the kind of society we want to become and how we are to achieve that society. They also challenge us to view ourselves as members of the same community and, while respecting and valuing the freedom of individuals to pursue their own goals, to recognize and further those goals we share in common.
In her book aptly named Generation Me, Jean Twenge explains how the current generation, also known as iGenerations, Generation Y, the Millenials, or in her book’s case, Generation Me (GenMe) has placed individualism over anything else.
In the first part of her book, Twenge indicates that the focus on individualism in GenMe is a product of demographic and cultural influences that have taught young people to place more importance on the self. The writer dedicates the second half of the book to exploring the consequences of individualism as seen in GenMe members.
This essay agrees with the propositions presented by Twenge. The essay observes that the consequences of individualism have largely worsened the values of the current generation through self-seeking behaviors that have little or no room for collective society value.
The consequences of individualism are indicated below:
Increased self-assuredness and less attention to others
The first consequence, which perhaps draws attention to the root cause of individualism in GenMe, is the inclination for GenMe members to believe in self while caring less about what other people think of them. As would be expected, people who do not care what others think of them do not, in turn, spend time caring about the actions or behaviors of others.
The belief that “there is no single right way to live” makes the self-seeking tendencies even more likely because it reduces the urge for GenMe members to learn from others (Twenge 19). Closely related to the concept of not caring about what others think of a person, is the inclination for individuals to have less empathy towards others.
As would be expected, a generation whose members focus mainly on the self would have little or no time to focus and attend to the need of others. Such is the nature of the current society where narcissism is arguably on the increase.
Reduced etiquette levels
Another consequence of individualism relates to the reduction of “respect for other people’s comfort” (Twenge 26). Since GenMe members were born into a society that had started breaking the rules of etiquette, (Twenge 24) argues that they learned to take standards and rules for granted.
The foregoing argument means that GenMe members are less likely to be law-abiding compared to the Baby Boomers generation that came before them. Their disregard for rules and standards makes them more likely to engage in acts such as cheating (especially in school).
Additionally, their respect for authority and/or experts is low, and they are more inclined to use profane language. Moreover, it would appear that societal taboos that were previously upheld in areas such as dating and marriage, and exposing oneself to others in explicit detail, are no longer applicable to GenMe members.
As a result, it is considered normal for people in the generation to cohabit outside marriage, and even when they marry, they have succeeded in redefining the meaning of marriage (e.g. through same-sex marriages). The increased use of social media among GenMe members means that they can share explicit details about their lives, not only with their friends but also with strangers.
This could be interpreted to mean that although GenMe members insist that other people’s opinion of them does not matter, they are a more inclined shape other people’s opinion of them through the multiple social media avenues.
Reshaped religion
Even more interesting is the reshaping of religion by GenMe members as described by (Twenge 34). Noting that church attendance has been on a steady decline for more than half a century, Twenge observes that GenMe compensates for their failure to attend church (or organized religion) by individualizing their belief systems.
Unlike the past where people had been socialized to accept religious teachings as absolute truths with no room for questioning the same, GenMe members chose to shape their beliefs whichever way they consider best. For example, they can believe in Christianity but still question some of the events documented in the Bible.
Such an approach to religion has consequences on the moral authority that religious institutions have on society. The individualized approach to religion is according to (Twenge 35) perpetuated by scholars, opinion leaders, and preachers, who underscore the importance of accepting oneself and not pursuing “other people’s approval” because “God accepts us unconditionally, and in His view, we are all precious and priceless”.
Suboptimal/optimal performance
Growing up in a culture where the emphasis was on the importance of feeling good about oneself regardless of whether one’s performance was good or not, (Twenge 56-57) observes that GenMe members have been conditioned to believe that performance is inferior to one’s feelings. In other words, one’s performance does not really define who they are.
Consequently, suboptimal performance is a likely outcome, especially in areas where the GenMe members do not have the internal drive to perform. Notably, however, GenMe members are likely to perform beyond expectations in areas that interest them.
Interest aside, the environment where they work needs to be flexible enough to accommodate their varying perceptions and approaches to life. For example, industries in the technology sector have successfully tapped into the potential of the GenMe members by giving them the freedom to dress and work whichever way they please; the only condition given by such companies is that employees must finish work within deadlines.
Increased acceptance of equality and diversity
Because GenMe members are less likely to believe in (or uphold) moral absolutes, they are more accommodating and open-minded to diversity (Twenge 181). GenMe members have departed from social rules that emphasized economic, gender and racial divisions among other negative values that undermined some groups.
By so doing, the subject generation has facilitated equality to take root in most societies. For example, women can now attend schools, take jobs, and perform equal tasks to those performed by their male counterparts. Additionally, race, religion, and nationality are no longer viewed as predictors of one’s capacity to perform specific duties.
A more anxious and depressed society
Although GenMe members have experienced relatively more economic prosperity, peace, and harmony in their generation, (Twenge 105-107) observes that they paradoxically register high levels of stress, anxiety, and depression compared to the baby boomers.
Among the likely reasons why anxiety and depression are prevalent among members of Gen, I am that the independence and self-sufficiency notions created by individualism often culminate in loneliness. Additionally, the focus on self has made GenMe members pursuers of material things, in an era which has registered higher costs of living. (Twenge 120)
For example notes that while “it was once possible to support a family on one middle-class or even working-class income”, the same is not true in the prevailing economic conditions. The foregoing observation can be interpreted to mean that what GenMe members expect from life is often at odds with the economic reality of the day.
Declined collective action for or against policies
Finally, Twenge (140-141) indicates that the individualistic GenMe pays no or little attention to society, the world, and politics. Declining interests in social and political affairs are evident in the reduced voter participation (compared to baby boomers), and the distrust than young people have in governments.
Twenge, therefore, argues that it is likely that the notion of collective action in support or against policy issues will continue declining in the future. Arguably, such a decline in collective actions can explain why most young people do not take labor unions membership and would instead prefer to negotiate pay and other work-related conditions through individual bargaining agreements.
Conclusion
As indicated in the introductory part of this essay, individualism informs most of the decisions made by GenMe members. The focus on self has thus shaped individuals’ perception of themselves as being superior to others, and this has led to a disenfranchised society, where collectivism and the power that emanates from collective action appears to be dwindling.
On a positive side, however, it would appear that individualism has created the environment necessary for equality and diversity to take root in society. Additionally, some industries have successfully utilized the self-seeking nature of GenMe members to facilitate optimal performance in workplaces.
Considering that most of the consequences indicated in this essay are negative, one would assume that society may in the future try to correct itself by embracing collectivism. Whether the preceding change will happen, however, depends on whether GenMe members will be dissatisfied with individualism, enough to champion the need for a collective lifestyle in the future.
Works Cited
Twenge, Jean M. Generation Me. New York: Free Press (Simon & Schuster), 2006. Print.
This paper discusses the ideals of individualism and collectivism. There exist cultural disparities in social behavior caused by ideals of collectivism and individualism. Individualism is the notion that life is individualistic and thus, everyone has a right to live as he pleases (Sampson, 2001).
This ideal also holds that a person ought to act on his individual opinions, pursue the values of his preference as well as utilize and maintain the creation of his effort. Besides, it is the thought that the person is an end to himself, independent and the basic component of moral concern (Kim, 1994). This represents the principle that Americans expressed and endeavored to launch when they formed the Constitution that safeguards a person’s rights to freedom, rights to live, right to own possessions, as well as the individual quest for happiness.
On the other hand, collectivism is the thought that a person’s life belongs to the entire community and that he does not possess any rights (Kim, 1994). Rather, the idea holds that an individual should forfeit his goals and values for the good of the larger group.
From the perspective of collectivism, the society forms the fundamental element of moral concern, and a person has to serve the group to get value (Kim, 1994). In other words, the only rights that an individual possesses are those that the society bestows. From when a person is born to the day of his demise, the community allows him certain rights and denies him others. This ideal values the welfare, preservation and happiness of the entire community.
Collectivism and individualism have a strong attachment to the society and thus, they shape our identities and behavior. The two ideals shape our values, attitudes, understanding, communication, socialization, as well as attribution.
Normally, intellectuals use individualist behaviors to describe people in Western parts of the world, including North America and Western Europe, while they use collectivism to describe people from other parts of the world such as Africa, South American, and Asia.
The majority of Europeans and North Americans have a sovereign perception of the self as a unit that is self-sufficient, unique, independent and gifted with exclusive characters.
However, in countries like Africa, Asia and Latin America, citizens embrace a mutually dependent perception of the self as a component of a bigger social system that comprises the family, colleagues as well as others to whom we have social attachments. As per se, Americans are more apt to articulate ego-focused sentiments such as pride and resentment. Conversely, Japanese who are collectivist often announce feelings of gratitude to somebody, familiarity to somebody and association with someone.
Resolving the Conflict between Individualism and Collectivism
The issue of individualism vs. collectivism is a source of main conflict in America. American scholars and politicians seek to know with certainty whether an individual has total rights over his life, or whether individuals belong to societies, from where they should derive their moral values.
Those who support individualism use ideas of metaphysics, to support their claims. They argue that people that we see in the environment exit as entities and not groups. While they recognize that people may be in groups, they say that we see indivisible beings that have their own bodies’ minds and life. In their interpretation, groups are just individuals who gather for their self-interests. They assert that the fact that people exist as entity beings is an observable truth that does not need debate.
Individualism, Collectivism and Culture
Several factors determine whether a culture assumes the collectivist or individualistic nature. The first is the wealth of society. As citizens start to thrive, they become economically independent from each other, and this also encourages social independence, mobility in addition to a focus on individual and not collective ends.
The second factor is the complexity of society. People exist in more multifaceted modern societies, as opposed to the nomads, they get more groups to relate to, and this makes them to have a larger focus on individual rather than collective goals, because they have less loyalty to these groups.
Another factor is heterogeneity. Homogeneous or tight societies are apt to be rigid and intolerant of those who behave in unacceptable ways. Factors that characterize such communities include shared religion, language and societal principles. Heterogeneous societies, which have many cultures coexisting together, tend to be more tolerant, creating room for further individual expression.
Individualism stresses personal autonomy and accomplishment. Hence, an individualist culture honors social status depending on individual undertakings such as significant innovations, inventions, artwork, or charitable work and all dealings that make a person noticeable collectivism, in contrast emphasizes on connectedness of persons in a bigger group. It supports conventionality and disheartens individuals from rebelling and acting distinctively. African development serves as a good illustration of collectivism.
Africans treat productive persons with distrust and force them to share their extra wealth with the community. Therefore, collective reprimands exist to punish the affluent. Such reprimands take the form of social exclusion, loss of status, or even violence. For instance, communities have often used witchcraft allegations to punish gluttony and covetousness in addition to ambitions to travel to other areas.
At the rear of these reprimands is the fear that the connectedness of the society will be destabilized and that a person who seems more flourishing will depart the community or will not reallocate any extra products, or food. In most African communities, people with huge savings tend to keep this as a secret from other community members at all costs, for fear of retribution.
Measures of Collectivism and Individualism
Hofstede (1980) came up with a conventional measure of collectivism and individualism. He utilized studies of IBM workers in thirty countries to draw conclusions. His idea was to study people with equal jobs in diverse nations in the same firm in an attempt to gauge cultural disparities. To evade cultural prejudice in the framing of questions, a team of English and native language speakers participated in the interpretation of the survey into native languages.
Recently, Hofstede’s gauge of individualism extends to about 80 nations. The gauge of individualism in other methods other than Hofstede’s index utilizes a wide selection of survey queries to create cultural standards. To sum up construct indices and information, they use factor analysis.
The index of individualism, in Hofstede’s study, is the primary factor in queries concerning the significance of autonomy, personal time, as well as fascinating and satisfying work. This factor loads negatively on significance of collaboration, associations with seniors as well as harmony and positively on valuing accomplishment, personal liberty, prospects, recognition and progression.
Discrepancies of Individualism and Collectivism among Persons
Attitudes towards collectivist and individualist ideals are not mutually exclusive. For instance, they can exist together on the personal level, since people have both sovereign and co-dependent attitudes. Besides, collectivist and individualist approaches can be set off as a function of social associations and communal perspectives. Thus, we can say, individualist associations are regular with a number of people or in certain circumstances such as in business dealings, while with others the association is collectivist, such as with relatives.
There exists variation in collectivist and individualist attitudes in diverse forms of associations for instance, with a parent, fiancée, neighbor, or colleague. Thus, people belong to certain groupings of collectivist and individualist attitudes.
Development of Individualism and Collectivism among different Countries
Americans perceive individualism as a good thing. Nevertheless, the term individualism seems to have its origin remote to the North American sphere, specifically in the French Revolution. It seems that America used individualism to portray the negative effect of personal rights on the interests of the commonwealth.
The growing surge of the individual rights group was apprehensive. People thought that individualism would quickly make the society fall apart into the power of individualism (Burke, 1973). From this perspective, individualism portrays a worldview opposed to society and communal social organization.
In fact, there is an extensive Western custom of differentiating collective and individual spotlights. For instance, Emile Durkheim utilized the words mechanical and organic cohesion to compare the provisional associations formed in multifaceted communities among different others.
From this perspective, organic solidarity describes a personal focus and the lasting bonds created among parallel others in traditional communities. Mechanical solidarity, on the other hand, is the communal focus. In addition, Weber (1930) differentiated Protestantism with Catholicism to show the difference between individualistic and collectivists. Catholicism believes in collectivism, while Protestantism believes in individualism.
He explained how Protestantism promoted self-reliance in addition to personal interests, while Catholicism supported lasting and hierarchical associations. Weber’s explanation on collectivism and individualism resembles the relationship between the collective rural villages and the individualistic urban societies.
For the last 20 years, the notion of differentiating communities depending on dissimilarities in individualism has augmented in status, in a big proportion due to the very prominent work of Hofstede. Hofstede (1980) distinguished individualism in countries from masculinity, power distance and uncertainty avoidance.
In his descriptions, the particular questions utilized to evaluate individualism centered on the place of work, differentiating the level that employees esteemed individual time and preference with the level they esteemed career trainings and job security. During the Study, Hofstede (1980) assessed likely experiences and inferences of these job-related aspects for communities.
While he was not the first social scholar to center unequivocally on culture, Hofstede’s concepts were significant since they prearranged cultural diversities into distinct patterns, which eased comparative study and instigated a swiftly growing organization of cultural and inter-cultural exploration in the following 20 years.
Typically, researchers depict collectivism as the opposite of individualism, particularly when differentiating East Asian cultural structures and European American (Chan, 1994).
Researchers in social science believe that individualism is more widespread in developed Western societies than other traditional communities in emerging nations are. The process of civic liberation and Protestantism in Western democracies brought social and public structures that supported the position of personal freedom, and self-actualization and individual preference (Sampson, 2001).
Scholars believe that these practices resulted in a Western civilizing center on individualism that is further outstanding in nations and cultural societies with a Protestant legacy. They also relate the thought of Western individualism to both in country and cross-regional relationships of ethnic societies with diverse cultural legacies.
Therefore, in America, it is usually understood that European Americans are less in collectivism and much into individualism than other people in ethnic minority groups elsewhere. Overall, present hypothesis in cultural psychology depicts the most individualistic group to be European Americans. The first thought that comes into one’s mind when dealing with European Americans is their individualistic nature. Since 1835, Americans have been individualistic.
Individualism in America relates to restricted government, as well as equality and individual freedoms. American individualism is also associated with the American frontiers, the Puritans and the origin of their market economy.
Individualism in America
For a long time, Americans have taken liberty, life and the quest for happiness with much significance. Besides, Americans are known to carry out themselves as independent individuals, who are detached from others. They do not expect to receive any free thing from others, and they do not give out their things. They believe that they are individually responsible for their destiny.
In fact, contemporary American cultural idols maintain to express their faith in individualism. Individual privacy as well as personal rights and liberties are celebrated. Besides, independence and individual happiness are highly esteemed.
The truth is that every American endeavors to create a private, special and distinctive self (Sampson, 2001). Besides, Americans perceive individualism as an exclusively American feature that forms a fundamental element of their culture. Nevertheless, despite the apparent consent that European Americans are the model that depicts individualism, there is no logical prove of the principal postulation that European Americans act, or are more individualistic than other societies.
Besides, there exists an obvious tension between the supposition that European Americans are exclusively low in collectivism and more inclined to individualism. Another area of contention is the supposition that the psychological frames built within the cultural ideals of attribution, self-concept and associations are collective frameworks and not just structures resulting from and pertinent to an individualistic perspective.
According to Baumeister (1998), recent American psychological inquiry is mainly focused on an individualistic perspective and may not essentially act as a common form of human behavior to the degree that other individuals or states of the globe are stridently dissimilar from Americans in collectivism and individualism. For instance, focus on self-esteem and the principle that achievement of personal happiness is a fundamental motivational force acts as a guide to explorations on self-concept.
Similarly, construal of cognitive processes and individual perceptions happens with regard to even traits, while equity is the foundation for flourishing relationships (Triandis, 1995). Such models of research can only be in shape with individualistic, but not collectivistic, ideals of the world. According to Triandis (1995), it is true that there exists disparities in individualism and the power of cultural structures is evident for the spheres of acknowledgment and relationality than all other areas.
Psychological Consequences of Individualism
According to Triandis (1995), it is possible to distinguish psychological effects of individualism in relation to self-concept, relationality and attribution. First, self-concept makes individualists to focus on making and sustaining a positive sense of self. In addition, self-concept makes individualists to feel good, to strive for individual success, and hold many unique individual views and attitudes. As per se, abstract characteristics, and not communal, descriptors are central to self-conceptualization
Moreover, it is possible to distinguish psychological effects of individualism in relation to well-being. Individualism calls for open expression of sentiments as well as accomplishment of personal aims. Individualists view these two aspects as vital sources of life satisfaction and well-being.
Furthermore, individualism calls for a personal orientation when it comes to reasoning and judgment, since the cause of the problems or issues is perceived as an entity. Therefore, individualists’ style of reasoning does not consider specific circumstances, or context. Rather, the style presupposes that social information is not connected to the social context.
Lastly, the effects of individualism on relationships are quite tentative. People need relationships and affiliations to groups to achieve self-relevant ends, although relationships are expensive to sustain. Scholars imagine that individualists use equity standards to poise benefits and costs associated with relationships (Kim, 1994).
They postulate that people step out of relationships when the costs exceed benefits and join new relationships that may lead to achievement of personal goals. Thus, theorists suppose that individualists form temporary relationships and group affiliations (Kim, 1994).
Psychological Consequences of Collectivism
A key component of collectivism is the supposition that groups collectivism aims at keeping members of the communal system leaning toward in-groups and afar from out-group. In this case, in-groups include the clan, family, as well as ethnic and religious groups. According to Triandis (1995), collectivism is a varied construct, bringing together culturally dissimilar foci on diverse types and stages of reference groups. Thus, collectivism can denote a wide range of attitudes, values and actions than individualism.
While at times seen as plain opposites, it is possibly more precise to conceptualize collectivism and individualism and as concepts that vary in the issues, they make prominent.
Sampson (2001) explains that collectivism is found in communal societies typified by disseminate and mutual duties as well as prospects deriving from attributed statuses. In such societies, social components with similar objectives and values are centralized. The individual is just a part of the social, making the group that the person lives in the main component of focus.
It is easy to identify possible psychological effects of collectivism. Some of these effects relate to welfare, self-concept, attribution and association. First, with reference to the self, collectivism denotes that belonging to a certain group is an essential feature of identity. On the same note, collectivism requires individual traits to mirror the objectives of collectivism, for instance, keeping harmonious interactions and sacrificing for the ordinary good of other members.
Second, with reference to emotional expression and welfare, collectivists explain that satisfaction in life comes from accomplishing social obligations and ensuring success as opposed to failure in those areas. Besides, collectivists call for moderation in expressing sentiments, but not direct and open expression of inner emotions.
Third, with reference to decisions, attributions and causal thinking, collectivism calls for consideration of the social environment, situational restraints, as well as social responsibilities. Collectivism contextualizes meaning and the memory of collectivists contains details that are richly rooted.
Finally, with reference to relationships, collectivism calls for significant group memberships. Every member in a collective society must belong to a certain group. Members within the groups have certain limitations. In addition, exchanges inside the groups should follow the principles of generosity and equality.
Case study of China
China is a country that has had ideological evolution from a more collectivist society to a more individualistic society. China now embraces capitalism in its economy as opposed to socialism. Capitalists promote individualism (Weber, 1930). They believe that there is always a reward for individual effort and these rewards benefit an individual. On the contrary, socialists promote the well-being if the group rather than the individual.
For a long time, China was a socialist economy. However, China experienced economic transformation in the last two decades and it transformed to a capitalist society. While the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) goes on with its activities in the disguise of socialism, it should continue to turn away the surfacing of values like individualism, whose affiliation is in developed, Western democracies such as America.
We all know that China is slowly embracing some aspects of individualism, although CPP does not announce it loudly. Nevertheless, this transformation to an individualistic society has led to realization that each citizen has some personal responsibility for his or her failure and achievements.
Conclusion
In conclusion, collectivism and individualism are cultural aspects that have a strong attachment to the society. Both aspects shape our identities and behavior. They also shape our values, attitudes, understanding, communication, socialization, as well as attribution. Individualism stresses personal autonomy and accomplishment.
Hence, an individualist culture honors social status depending on individual undertakings such as significant innovations, inventions, artwork, or charitable work and all dealings that make a person noticeable collectivism, in contrast emphasizes on connectedness of persons in a bigger group.
It supports conventionality and disheartens individuals from rebelling and acting distinctively. African development serves as a good illustration of collectivism. Africans treat productive persons with distrust and force them to share their extra wealth with the community. Americans, on the other hand, embrace individualism. Every American endeavors to create a private, special and distinctive self (Sampson, 2001).
They perceive individualism as an exclusively American feature that forms a fundamental element of their culture. In fact, Americans take liberty, life and the quest for happiness with much significance. Besides, Americans carry out themselves as independent individuals, who are detached from others. They do not expect to receive any free thing from others, and they do not give out their things. They believe that they are individually responsible for their destiny.
Collectivism requires individual traits to mirror the objectives of collectivists. Collectivists explain that satisfaction in life comes from accomplishing social obligations and ensuring success as opposed to a failure in those areas. They also call for moderation in expressing sentiments, but not direct and open expression of inner emotions. On the other hand, individualists focus on making and sustaining a positive sense of self.
They call for open expression of sentiments as well as accomplishment of personal aims. Furthermore, individualists call for personal orientation when it comes to reasoning and judgment, since individualism treats causes of the problem or issues as an entity. Therefore, individualists’ style of reasoning does not consider specific circumstances or context. Rather, the style presupposes that social information is separate from the social context. Therefore, both collectivism and individualism shape our identities and behavior.
References
Baumeister, R. (1998). The self. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 680–740). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Burke, E. (1973). Reflections on the revolution in France. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.
Chan, D. K. (1994). COLINDEX: A refinement of three collectivism measures. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 200–210). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kim, U. (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Conceptual clarification and elaboration. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 19–40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sampson, E. E. (2001). Reinterpreting individualism and collectivism: Their religious roots and monologic versus dialogic person-other relationship. American Psychologist, 55, 1425–1432.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Weber, M. (1930). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York, NY: Routledge.
Modern society faces global challenges that significantly reduce life quality. For example, the environment suffers from human activity – air, water, and soil are polluted, entire species of animals and plants disappear. At the same time, people suffer from environmental degradation, a lack of resources, a gap between the rich and the poor, hunger, unemployment, and similar problems. A possible reason for the issues is that people prefer to preserve personal interests, individualism and do not act for the common good. In such a case, the cohesion and commitment of each individual to shared goals and interests seem to solve the mentioned problems. However, despite the attractive image of the concept of the common good, there are many obstacles to its implementation.
Individuals’ Role in Solving the Global Problems
People are the foundation of world society and its main force, and as members of society, they bear specific responsibility for their actions. For instance, in preserving the environment, an individual guided by moral obligations makes a choice – to send garbage for recycling and consume less. The more people choose environmental friendliness, the greater the effect. However, a person is unlikely to stop the corporation from cutting down forests for its benefit.
In other issues, such as political violence, poverty, or unemployment, individuals can do even less, as they have fewer opportunities, and complex political and economic processes are behind these problems. CEOs or business owners who hire employees can have some impact, but their resources also limit their capabilities. It is worth noting that inequality also applies to environmental issues. For instance, more affluent people can abandon non-eco-friendly meat and find an alternative, and the low-income families are happy about any products available to them. These suggestions mean that while individuals may have a responsibility, it is limited to their capabilities.
Since most people have limited opportunities and influence, the question arises of how else they can help solve global problems. According to professor Levermann (2019), the spreading requirement for individual actions in environmental matters is a shift of responsibility from governments and it should not be so intense. His assumption is reasonable as people choose the government to work in citizens’ interests and protect them in all global questions. Cohen (2021) disagrees with this approach and argues that changing people’s thinking promotes collective action and change. Strong leaders with system thinking are needed to change individuals’ views and encourage transformation (Bryson et al., 2021). However, a group of people will also have limited opportunities but still more influence and will be able to hold politicians accountable. This assumption means that to solve global problems, all forces are interconnected – leaders change people’s thinking and habits. People, in turn, require influential individuals as politicians to act, and they together contribute to change.
Sense of Common Purpose and Public Spirit vs. Private Pursuits and A Market Mentality
Addressing global issues requires major transformations that may affect everyone. There is a conflict between collectivism when people are in priority and individualism when an individual is in focus. A common goal can unite people and force them to act in a certain way by abandoning their interests. However, the number of people sharing one opinion is necessarily limited, and there is a group sharing another view. For example, one part may consider environmental degradation a more critical problem, and the other part may think about poverty. Shared goals and common good go beyond the standard requirements of fairness as it requires personal motivation and not only an external incentive, such as rights guaranteed by law (Hussain, 2018). Thus, it may be challenging to determine what is a common interest as well as its importance.
Common interests also do not guarantee equality, as they can impose a more substantial burden on one group than on the other. In particular, all people cannot make an equal contribution to solving problems – somebody will be a free rider (“Free rider problem,” 2020). Moreover, as mentioned earlier, some people can give up some interests with minor damage; for instance, wealthy people can easily find alternatives to non-eco products. At the same time, adhering only to one’s interests will exacerbate existing problems. Current market mentality, the search for the most significant benefit to the detriment of the rest led to these issues emergence. Koons (2019) argues that extreme forms of both collectivism and individualism can lead to negative consequences. Thus, it is essential to consider not extremes but to find a balance between the preservation of individuality and the common good.
The Balance between Individual Responsibility and Public Role
Given all the above arguments and assumptions, it is possible to suggest a connection and a balance between a person’s individual responsibility and the public role. People are responsible for their actions and how they influence their surroundings, defining their roles in society. In turn, the public also affects the formation of the individual. Public and personal correlate with a comparison of collectivism and individualism. Extremes of any phenomenon are not beneficial, and therefore both the public role and personal responsibility should not be to the detriment of each other and demand balance.
Conclusion
The modern world challenges humanity through global problems, and their solution depends on the people themselves. However, only individual actions are not enough to solve global issues – transformations must occur at various levels. Modifications of this magnitude require strong leaders, a change in human thinking, and cooperation for the common good. However, there are several obstacles to collaboration and establishing common interests. In particular, such actions may require people to renounce their interests, and at the same time, from different groups to varying degrees, which is unfair. The challenge humanity is facing is finding a balance to solve problems without exacerbating inequality or suppressing personal rights.
The necessity to live in society and follow the social rules and norms is an integral part of life that cannot be neglected by people. In the last two essays, the situations when a community may influence a person in different ways were discussed. On the one hand, fear of being ashamed the same way an obese girl in the class was can make people keep silent and not be distinguished among other representatives of society. On the other hand, a desire to overcome social isolation and learn more than one hundred words (Rodriguez 12) can stimulate a person to study hard and achieve good results at the expense of family relations. However, these are two extremes that make people choose without considering personal interests and needs. People need another option. Strong individualism may be considered as a solution that can help people to underline some personal characteristics and stay loyal to the norms established in society.
Strong individualism may be observed in the cultures developed by such countries as the United States, Great Britain, or Canada (Maraffi et al. 214; Theiss-Morse 112). These cultures show that it is not enough to be different. It is more important to prove that the chosen beliefs and attitudes make sense and have to be respected by others. Basu-Zharku writes that individuals should “gain a sense of who they are by relating to others within a culture and creating a shared past” (par. 2). Strong individualism is an attempt to encourage people to understand their true potential and investigate their skills and dreams. As soon as people clarify what they actually can or want to achieve, they can be rather useful to society. The period of this kind of self-search may last a long time. People can make mistakes, come with wrong or unclear solutions, and change their opinions several times. However, the results that can be achieved with time may be beneficial for both, a person and society. The only requirement that should be met is the time that is necessary for the analysis of personal worth, the development of skills, and the introduction of the results to society.
In the situation that took place in the school with the obese girl, several options could be possible. For example, the girl could prove her rights and resist the pressure of her peers by understanding her beauty and knowledge. She could use more interesting and worthy methods of revenge. She could use her strong individualism as a means to explain that some personal weaknesses or defects should not become the reasons for humiliation but serve as powerful aspects of a personality. Unfortunately, not all children are provided enough information about personal dignity, self-respect, and strong individualism at schools. People need more time to comprehend how they can use their knowledge and abilities and more teachers, who can explain why individualism is worth consideration and development in different countries regarding their cultures, traditions, and social expectations.
Strong individualism may be good for society in case society realizes its importance. People should comprehend their worth and learn to use it at an early age. Children are usually weak when the time to identify their individualist features comes. Therefore, they may need some explanations, support, and understanding. As a rule, parents, teachers, and advisors aim at explaining the benefits of strong individualism to children so that they can use it properly. This kind of individualism may be rather beneficial to society. As soon as several people try to demonstrate their self-reliance, independence, and personal achievements (Basu-Zharku par.7), they may create the society with the same characteristics.
In its turn, a strong individualistic society is a group of people with unique and well-grounded ideas and perspectives that can be used for development and improvement. Some people believe that individualism may close several doors because of the inabilities to find consensus and follow the norms that have been established based on experience and knowledge. Still, if no such attempts are made to promote changes, progress can be hardly observed. People cannot deprive themselves of progress and the improvements that can make their lives better. Strong individualism is hope that should live inside of every person to make this world better, and society should not prevent its development.
In general, strong individualism is good for society in case society is aware of the benefits that can be achieved with strong individuals. People should be able to reflect on what they can, what they want, and what they have to do individually and in groups when they realize their potential and believe that they can improve the world and the conditions under which people have to live. Though to be a strong individual is not an easy task, people should try to achieve the goals they set and develop their skills to the necessary level and help society to become better using the potential of others.
Works Cited
Basu-Zharku, Iulia. “Effects of Collectivistic and Individualistic Cultures on Imagination Inflation in Eastern and Western Cultures.” Student Pulse Academic Journal 3.2. (2011): n. pag. Student Pulse. Web.
Maraffi, Marco, Kenneth Newton, Paul F. Whiteley and Jan. W. van Deth. Social Capital and European Democracy, New York: Routledge, 2008. Print.
Rodriguez, Richard. Hunger of Memory: The Education of Richard Rodriguez, New York: Random House Publishing Group, 2004. Print.
Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth. Who Counts as an American?: The Boundaries of National Identity, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Print.
The “cultural focus” of marriage has “shifted” from a collectivist ideal to an individualistic ideal, more so in the last few decades. A marriage that is established on a collectivist ideal tends to be focused more on the interests of the in-group more than self interests. This is as opposed to the individualistic view whereby egocentrism prevails (Newman & Newman, 2008).
The collectivism practice of arranged marriages is no longer a thriving practice in most societies and instead, couples are becoming more individualistic where romantic love is central to establishment of a marriage relationship. Individuals are making personal choices on whom to settle down with in marriage and concerns about the effect of their choices on others are not of great importance.
Romantic love that has been enhanced by urbanization due to increased choice and creation of an ideal of what constitutes a relationship. Individuals are therefore highly guided by their personal choice on who to marry rather than in-group influences on partner choice.
Individualistic societies have higher divorce rates
The shift from collectivism to individualism in marriages can be seen in how conflicts are resolved between couples. In a collectivism society, the goals created by the in-group tend to have an upper hand as the couples resolve their differences.
This has changed with individualism as conflict resolution is characterized by preference of personal goals. This may to some extent explain why there has been an increase in divorce rate in the more individualistic societies like the West. In less individualistic societies like China and Africa, the divorce rate is lower since the parties have to consider the interests of clan and the in-laws (Jia-xue, 2009).
Wealth growth has reduced interdependence
Interdependence in marriages, where the couple would depend on the extended family or the community for resources or social support, is shifting as individuals are becoming more affluent in an industrialized world. The modern society has changed from an agricultural and hunting society to an industrialized one and this has diminished the advantages accrued from collective lifestyle. Couples have gained economic independence and tendency to pursue own goals or goals that affect the nuclear family only has set in.
Individuals who are settling in marriages or those who are already in marriages are becoming more affluent and the interdependence which is achieved in an in-group is diminishing. This wealth growth has promoted individualism in marriages since couples can accomplish their goals without external support.
More education has promoted individualism as characterized by late marriages and childbearing
Exposure to education is cited as one of the factors that lead to a shift from a collectivism view of life to an individualistic life (Newman & Newman, 2008). Due to more education, individuals are getting a lot of information and cultural diversity is enhanced. As a result, individual choice is strengthened as the person tends to have different views on issues that affect him or her. Presently, both partners in a marriage relationship tend be more educated and therefore personal choice has been enhanced.
It is therefore no wonder that pursuit of academic and career achievement has led to some couples marrying later in life whereas the society expects them to marry at a certain age period. In a collectivist society, in-group members are restricted into the number and extent of choices that they make.
This not only involves the decision on who to marry but also on how to conduct oneself in a marriage relationship. This may explain the recent tendency of women marrying and/ or having children later in life as they pursue their career and academic goals, which are largely personal.
References
Jia-xue, C. A. O. (2009). The analysis of tendency of transition from collectivism to individualism in China. Cross-cultural communication, 5(4): 42-51
Newman, B. M. and Newman, P. R. (2008). Development through life: A psychosocial approach, (Tenth edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Individualism is an expression of social thought and interaction rather than a primary characteristic of social organization and action. The teachings of Jesus stressed the worth of the human soul, and His church was the most important institution–and yet individualism gained very little hold until the protest was made against the medieval church and society in the early Renaissance period. In fact, individualism may have been more a protest against the old order into which it broke than it was a development of an agricultural society at the end of the 19th century. Modern society sees individualism as a social, economic, and political sphere. Modern societies grant too much room for individualism to penetrate all spheres of our life.
Modern society gives too much freedom to individualism justified as freeing people from a pre-existing collectivized society or oppressive and arbitrary political and economic absolutism. As a people become well organized and integrated, individualism is of greater or less consequence. The national government has a clean slate upon which to write any laws it chose to make since there had never been any earlier national government. Even the slogan “a government of laws and not of men” does not produce much legislation for that generation which thought the less government the better. This new “individualism” grows out of the old, yet it is almost its opposite (Cottingham, 1996). When public health is named as a chief basis of action by government and safeguarded through an unwritten if not a written constitution, a still larger and more important element develops–the right of society to protect itself, regardless of the limitations which that protective action may place upon the individual in his relations with other individuals or with society. In the field of individual rights, more or less for the purpose of protecting the rights of citizens in society critics (Triandis, 1995) have a shift from a philosophy of individualism to one of public welfare and socialization. The protection of individual rights through business competition has been the main purpose of some of the most liberal and forward-looking government agencies. For the individual and for society the understanding of what is involved in new standards will be a considerable part of this task of socialization and reorganization. Those standards are necessary which will help the individual develop himself wisely and well, and help society find and do what is fair, just, and best, since those will be ethical (Dewey, 1999).
From a historical perspective, in the middle of the nineteenth-century governments may have been formed as they were fifty centuries earlier, but the groups governed were organized in a modern way rather than an ancient. The modern state has been a natural development from the feudal state. In medieval times people were governed in countries with a hereditary king as the political figurehead (Dumont, 1992). Political authority rested with a noble who controlled his local estate isolated from its neighbors by impassable roads, and by limited community requirements. Politics and good government were the least of the interests of a noble little concerned with his tenants, but vitally interested in warfare (Hayek, 1995). In the modern development of society politically, there has been a readjustment of the interrelations of individual and group. Ancient states made almost a religious fetish of the idea of group solidarity. The family, the clan, and later the tribe, was everything; the individual was a social nonentity. A new society appears: not simply a mass, but a group of members, important as individuals. Centuries elapsed, however, before these ideas penetrated beyond the confines of a few New England towns or the churches of some of the more progressive Protestant sects. The Puritans led the way, but, stiff-necked as they had to be, they did not lead very far (Hayek, 1995).
The power and influence of individualism on modern society are explained by the greater role and importance of democracy and democratic institutions. Individualist democracy brought universal suffrage to women as well as men earlier in northern European countries than elsewhere (Dumont, 1992). Modern conditions, even before the present time, have been unsuitable for the family system bequeathed by antiquity. Democracy and the emancipation of women are corollaries. The Individualism that has pervaded all modern thought, aided and abetted by crowded city conditions, has been a centrifugal force that has affected family solidity. Possibly it is responsible to some extent for breaking up the unity of home life. One by one the characteristics of the outgrown patriarchal family disappear, unhonored if recognized as obsolete but deeply regretted when still of some value or part of our present culture pattern. The frontiersman practiced it; the pioneer farm-owner used it daily and carried it into his political and social thought or action. “Te freedom to believe can only cover living options which the intellect of the individual cannot by itself resolve; and living options never seem absurdities to him who has them to consider” (Cottingham 1996, p. 287).
Competing merchants or manufacturers claimed it as their own, when not too busy lobbying for public help or organizing publicly created corporations. It became a part, possibly the essence, of the old Americanism (Hayek, 1995). To it, people owe the vision of a new concept of the individual, his rights, and his social opportunities. Not in theory but in fact, a new social order was created out of which a really socialized society might arise if it could subordinate individualism to itself. For generations, almost to the present day, to question it, or the rural democracy growing out of it, or the shift of dollars dependent on it, was to question patriotism or challenge deity. It may have been a by-product of agricultural civilization; probably its chief victim has been the agriculturist (Triandis1995).
The democracy that seems ideal and certainly was adequate for a simple, rather primitive community with few outside contacts could hardly be transplanted to an urban society living in a complex world. In the larger cities, the closest neighbors frequently know nothing of each other, except possibly some unfortunate gossip of each other’s affairs. That may be gained through the press more often than from those living near. An individualist theory of government, therefore, which stressed the rights of men, offered an argument for separation from Great Britain. It did not provide a suitable philosophy for building an integrated, industrialized, complicated society (Triandis1995). The political breakdown of rural democracy was hastened by the rise of the city until nearly seventy percent of the people came to live in fairly large communities. It may still claim freedom of initiative, freedom of contract, exemption from interference by the public; but it has ceased to exist profitably unless it works harmoniously with a complex society in which alone it finds purchasers and its general market. It has destroyed individualism by a collectivist corporation, developed into combination and consolidation. It has destroyed individualism so far as it may have deprived the workers of freedom of choice and of the opportunity of selling their labor to the highest bidder. Following Dumont (1992) “as a whole- and not only from the working class directed against the capitalistic economic order based on individualism, while individualism itself and its conceptual and economic forms are described as disreputable immigrants from the West” (p. 157).
The free contract is a desirable if not an essential feature of any successful economic society. The difficulty is to have it free when the parties are so unequal as in our day. To be just and fair a contract should give what it declares, “value received.” The farmer, the worker, and the consumer are wondering why they did not get it. Private enterprise and initiative stimulate interest, give the capable a chance and change a static business or social organization into a dynamic (Triandis1995).
The land of the free has it, for those who can invent, and keep the invention, for those who play the game, perhaps for those whose field is not already semi-monopolized. The small businessman has his troubles, with local organizations that give no outsider a chance, under codes or substitutes that protect chiefly the average producer or seller. The free competition was sharply in contrast with paternalism and monopoly of court favorites of the pre-“laissez-faire” period. Free competition, somewhat like a contract, is assumed if it did not assure the power of equal bargaining (Hayek, 1995). This was most easily secured for the producer against the producer, seller, and buyer. It was less easy to protect the seller against the seller and the buyer against the buyer. It has been hardest of all, in days not far gone, to safeguard buyers against producer and seller. In a close hundred-yard dash the judges try to pick out those in first, second, and third places, for all cannot watch first only. New electric checks show a fair percentage of error. The judges of our economic competition have had their eyes too much on the modern winners, the producers. When producers only are in the race, they try to weed out those who jump the gun, “box” the fleetest, or foul their competitors. They pay very little attention to crude tactics in the other races. We have often failed to appoint judges of fair competition to protect consumers; and sometimes groups of workers have not even had rules for their protection (Dumont, 1992).
The capitalist and the industrialist have the direct advantages of the new power and technology as well as the indirect advantages of combination. The combination works to the disadvantage of the farmer and the worker and the consumer, who compete against each other as well as against the industrialist. Until that competition is limited, or each of these groups, or all together, can compete on equal terms with those directly in charge of production, the industrial capitalists alone will enjoy most of the fruits of the new industrial revolution (Dumont, 1992).
A well-balanced society is as important to a nation as a well-balanced personality and character are to an individual. The proper adjustment of one part to another is difficult in proportion to the attempt to combine old with new or profit-seeking with welfare service. Even production planning is better than either unorganized competition or predatory combination. Give us a better balanced and more unified society, with less thought of gain, and more of progress; capital industrialism then can become a real part of civilization instead of civilization being a by-product of industrial capitalism (Triandis1995). The decline of Individualism, a philosophy, will involve too high a price if the individual under the new order has less training, less self-direction, less self-control, less individuality. The place of the individual in society, and the part he has in its work and progress, will depend upon the responsibility he assumes as much as upon our reorganized society. It is possible that the solution of our difficulty may depend in large part upon our finding better proportions of the materials of civilization out of which we can rebuild our economic and social system. If the foot rule by which we have measured values and decided worthwhile actions is too simple and too material, we may need one that is composite. Such a standard probably would not be furnished by the engineer, the captain of industry, or the money king, whose real contributions have been made too much with an eye on the year’s ledger balance (Triandis1995).
To make clearer the trend from an individualist philosophy of society toward a more highly socialized one, possibly attention might be drawn to some outstanding changes in successive periods of the twentieth century. Undoubtedly there will be some repetition of material already given, just as there has been in these accounts just presented. Certainly, there was little government interference even when businesses used distinctively unsocial methods at home and abroad (Dumont, 1992). The power of the Department of State was used to promote foreign business, especially in Latin America; at times it gave permission for Americans to expend good money on doubtful investments abroad. Socialization seems less noticeable during this new era, but socialization may have been hastened more by business consolidation during those years than in any other period. Moreover, the reaction against profit-taking during this period, although not observable until the depression may make that time of prosperity one of the epoch-making periods of progressive advance. Probably most of the criticisms hurled at the existing order dealt chiefly with industrialism and were awakened by the armies of the unemployed and the interminable bread lines. The debt problem may have caused almost as much feeling against the investment financiers, but it did not give an equal understanding of the problem or show up so well the weaknesses of the existing system (Triandis1995). The worldwide extent of depression brought into relief the problem of attempting to create social order, not local or even national, but at least as wide as a western civilization, which was built upon so slender and temporary a foundation as that furnished by present-day capitalism (Dumont, 1992).
In sum, modern society grants much power for individualism and sees it as a part of political, social, and economic agenda. It might be worthwhile to inquire whether society might attain a satisfactory social reorganization, not by changing the bases upon which the new is built, but just by remedial legislation, by concerted neglect of old and poor laws, by disregarding through almost unanimous consent the evils of unjust past political, social or economic institutions and systems. Certainly, an individualist society seems to defeat its own purpose if it seeks to leave uncoördinated a large amount of personal initiative, self-direction, and self-development; for, as a consequence, it loses cohesion and unity. Group organization ought to represent better recognition of each person’s individuality, ought to promote rather than stifle that individuality. Even though it is not conscious of such a purpose, when it gives him the place for which he is fitted, training him carefully and successfully for that sphere, and enables him to find the work which he can do, valuable to himself and helpful for the best development of society, it is foredoomed to success. A society may thus gain greater mobility than any individualist order could possibly attain. Capitalization of abilities means the offering of new opportunities for self-expression and self-direction within the limits of the activity which the society sets for itself rather than for its members. There is no reason why, in a system of growing socialization, the new individualism should not be better than the old, because the society cannot achieve its purpose of making humanity safe for humanity, and attain its best stature, unless it does make the most of individual members. So far as the individual is concerned, the point is chiefly that any member benefits from good group organization and the right kind of cooperation between himself and society far more than he can by any independent, uncorrelated attempt to serve himself.
References
Cottingham, J. (1996). Western Philosophy: An Anthology. Blackwell Publishers.
Dewey, J., (1999). Individualism Old and New. Prometheus Books.
Dumont, L. (1992). Essays on Individualism: Modern Ideology in Anthropological Perspective. University Of Chicago Press.
Hayek, F.A. (1995). Individualism and Economic Order. University Of Chicago Press
Triandis, C. H. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism (New Directions in Social Psychology). Westview Press.
Anthem a dystopian novella by Ayn Rand, originally published in 1938. It tells the story of a man’s struggle with individuality in a society where it is forbidden. The novella’s central theme is individualism, its relation to progress and humanity, framed as a modern version of the Prometheus myth. It also makes use of a limited vocabulary to illustrate how limited thought is when devoid of the possibility to think of the self. This essay will examine some of Anthem’s themes and its main character.
Summary
Anthemfollows Equality 7-2521, a man is living in a conservative collectivist society where individualism has been eliminated. Nothing bears a unique name except a practical descriptor of its function, such as “Home of the Scholars.” Even human beings’ names follow a pattern, consisting of a generic noun like Unity or Similarity, and a number. Technology has collapsed from presumably advanced levels to the point where the newest invention, a candle, had been made a hundred years ago. From an early age, the protagonist notices that he surpasses his peers: taller, smarter than most, and, when he finally sees his reflection for the first time, more beautiful.
Eventually, he finds a ruined tunnel left by the pre-collapse civilization, where he hides and performs various experiments. These experiments finally lead him to rediscover electricity, but when he presents his invention to the Council of Scholars, he is sentenced to death. The device is a transgression and must be destroyed because it was individual thought and research that led to it, and “what is not done collectively cannot be good” (Rand 111).
Equality 7-2521 has no difficulty escaping to the nearby Uncharted Forest with his love interest, where they find joy in their newly rediscovered individuality, and eventually settle down in an abandoned pre-collapse house. As the novella ends, the couple has taken on the names of Prometheus and Gaea. Prometheus plans to eventually return to the City from which they fled to recruit individuals like himself and rebuild an individualistic, independent society.
Themes
The central theme in Anthem is individuality, rediscovered as the protagonist is rejected by his society and has to learn to think and act for himself. As he does, he discovers that the world outside of the safe, if restrictive, City, is surprisingly friendly, food is plentiful, and no danger is evident. All one needs is the toil of one’s hands, a value that is prevalent in Rand’s later works. Another theme is the way a limited language prevents people from expressing or even understanding their desires, similar to Orwell’s 1984. In Anthem’s case, it is the individualistic expression that has been abolished, and contrary to other dystopian fiction, this abolition has “resulted in physical and spiritual degradation” (Ashford 14-15). This degradation of language is used in the novella itself, as it only contains 1992 unique words (including plurals, etc.) in its length. There is a noted expansion of the protagonist’s vocabulary in later chapters, after he escapes, associating expression and, through emotion, humanity, with freedom and independence.
There is an allegory to the Prometheus myth, as Equality 7-2521 builds an electrical light (also a source of heat, making it a clear stand-in for fire) to present to the people of the City. This gift is rejected, and it is not God, but the people themselves that punish him. However, in being cast out, he steals another, figurative, fire — the fire of knowledge, individualism — for himself. The technical nature of the device is essential, as technological progress, as brought forth by remarkable individuals, is a significant theme in Rand’s work. “Creation by the individual mind is what makes the human world possible,” associating progress with humanity, as noted by Murnane (141). Anthem presents this association almost literally: the dehumanized, anonymous collective rejects it, and the individual has to bear the burden of discovery.
Character
The only character that gets any definition is the protagonist, Equality 7-2521, later Unconquered and Prometheus. A fellow street sweeper is described as his friend, but nothing can be gleaned from his only action in the novella, refusing to betray the hero’s discovery of an abandoned tunnel. Even his love interest, Liberty 5-3000, gets little to no characterization: she follows him into exile, promises to follow him unconditionally, and die with him if necessary (Rand 129). Later she spends time in front of a mirror, suggesting pride in her appearance and possibly vanity. Therefore, Equality 7-2521 and his growth into Prometheus is the only character that shall be discussed.
At the start of the novella, he is compliant with society’s norms. He does not know the word “I” and only refers to humans, including himself, in the plural. He views his thoughts and actions and sinful — some of the first words the reader sees are, “It is a sin to think words no others think…” (Rand 10). When he is assigned his lifetime duty as a Street Sweeper, he believes he “had been guilty, but now we had a way to atone for it” (Rand 27). However, merely wishing to become a Scholar in the first place is enough to show that he has individuality and ego, but struggles to express them.
Spotting a young woman he likes, the protagonist still struggles to express his thoughts but gives her a unique name — The Golden One. It is a severe transgression since the name “includes the word “one,” a word implying the very individuality that is forbidden by the society” (Knapp 84). Furthermore, the name no longer follows a random pattern, but is directly inspired and describes its owner — precisely, her hair. Not only does this act express Equality 7-2521’s individuality, but acknowledges it in another being, signifying his growth.
In the final chapters, having fled the City and forced to fend for himself, the hero finally finds happiness. His vocabulary expands, culminating in finally learning the word “I” and unlocking a desire not just to be an individual but share his individuality with others. It is his true gift to bring back to society, not the reinvention of a light bulb, the much more literal reference to the myth of Prometheus.
Discussion
The use of a limited vocabulary is striking, demonstrating how difficult such seemingly universal concepts as friendship can be hard to express in a society where “all men are our friends” (Rand 33). The protagonist openly struggles with explaining his friendship with another person, and Unity’s confession of love turns into “We are one… alone… and only… and we love you who are one… alone… and only” (Rand 137). These feelings, while directed at another person, rely heavily on the concept of self, which the City’s society attempts to eradicate.
Anthem’s themes and allegories are laid bare. Therefore, the novella is to be viewed as much more metaphorically, intended to be taken as a parable. Like many other dystopias, it serves as a cautionary tale but does so without referring to any particular geography or ideology besides the broad category of collectivism. A future like the one described can happen, according to Rand, anywhere and to any society that begins relying too heavily on the collective in favor of the individual.
Conclusion
Anthem is an interesting and important dystopian work and an early display of Ayn Rand’s individualistic ideology. Its themes of individualism and progress would continue to be central to Rand’s future work. While the struggle of the individual in an oppressive society is common to dystopian fiction, Equality 7-2521’s quest puts the search for individuality itself on the forefront, setting Anthem out. In the end, the modern Randian Prometheus’ gift to the people is neither light nor warmth, and it is Ego.
Works Cited
Ashford, David. “A New Concept of Egoism”. Johns Hopkins University Press, vol. 21, no. 4, 2014. pp. 977-995
Knapp, Shoshana Milgram. “Ayn Rand’s Anthem: Self-Naming, Individualism, and Anonymity”. A Journal of Onomastics vol. 64, no. 2, 2016, pp. 78-87
Murnane, Ben. Ayn Rand and the Posthuman: The Mind-Made Future. Palgrave Macmillan, 2016
A Good Man Is Hard to Find by Flannery O’Connor is a short story and many critics have various points of view about it. Some scholars pointed at the greatest problem of individualism, others referred to the religious themes in the story. Moreover, the story relation to the Eddie Green’s 1918 song with the same title is observed and many scholars cannot reject this idea, “the lyrics avert attention from the illusive to the near” (Nester 115).
The very story is focused on many specific aspects and smaller themes which are closely interconnected, however the idea of individualism is the dominant. The author touches the family relations, the contradiction from the very first sentence and many other themes which may be considered in the story. However, the problem of individualism is believed to be the central theme in the paper.
Grandmother is believed to be the person who has managed to become individuality in dangerous world where people who lived with her were unable to understand her desire to be the one who differs from others not because she is special, but because she has her point of view, her specific ideas and consideration in the direction of many aspects and the inability of other family members crates a kind of a contrast.
Considering individualism as the social notion, it may be concluded that it should be defined as the moral worth of a person. Individuality is a person who deserves much attention. It is a person who has personal ideas, personal point of view and particular attitude to the things. The more personal issues are considered in the story, the more attention should be paid to the person. Individualism is a desire of a person who has managed to enter the society to show personal opinion.
It is obvious that calling a person individuality we mean in most cases the person who manages to express his/her ideas in such a way that many people should listen to them. Thus, calling the grandmother in A Good Man Is Hard to Find by Flannery O’Connor individuality who deserves attention is correct. Additionally, it should be stated that the grandmother is the only individuality in the story. Each her movement, each her phrase is the expression of the personal ideas and desires.
She does not pay attention to anyone who tries to contradict her point of view, she does everything to make sure that her opinion is heard and that she has done everything to protect herself. Such individualism is seen from the very beginning of the story and is not finish up to the very end of it. Hooten is sure that “the grandmother in A Good Man Is Hard to Find loses her earthly life, but in the last moment when she renounces her individualism, she may also be finding spiritual life” (200).
Proving the idea of the grandmother’s domination, her individualism and the desire to show that her point of view should be listened to, it is important to conduct a close reading of the text. It will help to see all the quotes which show that the grandmother managed to express her point of view in such a way that all the members had to do nothing but to submit. “The grandmother didn’t want to go to Florida. She wanted to visit some of her connections in east Tennes – see and she was seizing at every chance to change Bailey’s mind” (O’Connor 495).
This is the first sentence in the story. It may be said that the whole story is supported with such statements. The grandmother wants something and she is intended to do it. Such phrases are numerous. It is easy to remember the way how the grandmother insists on the ideas she likes and what she does to convince others that the opinion she has created is the only necessary and the only correct. Showing her personality, the grandmother does everything as she likes without being interested in what others think about the issues.
It is obvious that the grandmother is sure that she is wiser and everyone has to listen to her, “She said she thought it was going to be a good day for driving, neither too hot nor too cold, and she cautioned Bailey that the speed limit was fifty-five miles an hour and that the patrolmen hid themselves behind billboards and small clumps of trees and sped out after you before you had a chance to slow down” (O’Connor 495).
This phrase seems to be the statement of the fact, however, the grandmother makes everyone believe that this is her idea. Such cases are numerous in the story and this may be one of the reasons why in some situations it seemed that the grandmother was not noticed at all.
Considering the attitude to the grandmother, it should be stated that no one treats her seriously. When she speaks to someone – no one answers her the way she deserves it. Being the mother of her “only boy” (O’Connor 495), when she speaks to any other member of the family they answer her as if she was nothing for them.
Doing their business, those people managed to answer the questions without looking at her. This is exactly what happens in the family. Reading that the grandmother “has to go everywhere” (O’Connor 495) the family goes it appears that other members of the family consider her as a one who is to be near them without noticing her individuality, “Bailey didn’t [even] look up from his reading” (O’Connor 497).
This is not the disgrace, it looks more like the situation when people got used to something and do not consider them as something valued. This is one of the reasons why the family members do not consider the grandmother appropriately. She is individuality. She has a personal point of view about each issue, in the relation to every problem and situation and this is the fact that makes others to be disturbed about their personal individualities as they failed to be as smart as the grandmother was.
Even the analysis of the story conducted by Keil makes it obvious that “O’Connor’s grandmother… is alienated from other members of creation. She is surrounded by people without any sign of intimate fellowship, just as the sailor is surrounded by water without being able to quench his thirst” (45). It is impossible to disagree with the statement as even at the end of the story the grandmother stays alone.
She appears an eye to eye with the killer trying to express her individuality and to convince him not to kill her. Additionally, considering the text, she is trying to behave in the way how she sees herself, she is trying to make sure that the Mistif is individuality, “”Jesus… You have got good blood! I know you would not shoot a lady! I know you come from nice people! Pray! Jesus, you ought not to shoot a lady. I’ll give you all the money I have got!” (O’Connor 506).
In conclusion, I should be stated that the problem of individuality in the paper is closely related to the absence of the individual features in other members of the discussion. There is an opinion that the grandmother lies to everyone and tries to manipulate others. This is true in some way and it is impossible to reject this idea.
However, all these actions show the grandmother as a strong personality and individuality who manages to reach the purposes she wants. It is obvious that the possibility to manipulate others points at two factors, a person who manipulates other is a strong individuality while those who are manipulated are the weaker ones.
The grandmother is individuality who has her personal point of view and does all possible to convince others that her opinion is the only correct. The purpose of this paper is not to show whether she is right or not. The individuality may have many points of view. At the same time, it is possible to state that it was proven that the grandmother deserves to be called individuality. The whole short story proves this idea via her actions and statements, and the behavior and opinion of others who surround her.
Works Cited
Hooten, Jessica. “Individualism in O’Connor’s A Good Man is Hard to Find.” Explicator 66.4 (2008): 197-200. Print.
Keil, Katherine. “O’Connor’s a good man is hard to find.” Explicator 65.1 (2006): 44-47. Print.
Nester, Nancy L. “O’Connor’s “A Good Man Is Hard to Find”.” Explicator 64.2 (2006): 115-118. Print.
O’Connor, Flannery. “A Good Man Is Hard to Find.” The Norton Introduction to Literature. Eds. Alison Booth and Kelly J. Mays. 10th ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 2005. 495–506. Print.
Individualism has been the center of debates among researchers and literature analysts. The world is mainly divided into individualists and collectivists.
Some of the countries that promote collectivistic cultures include Korea, Taiwan and Egypt, among others. On the other hand, those that promote individualistic cultures include most western cultures such as Italy, France and England, among others. The latter groups of countries (western) usually attribute individualism to reasoning. They claim that it is an individual that reasons. However, the other groups that promote collectivism credit it with collective responsibility.
Individualism refers to one’s emphasis on self or individual person. It is quite important to note that a group of people can rarely reason as required. In fact, this is what has encouraged individualism in western cultures. This paper will explore Ralph Waldo’s essay on self reliance. It will also endeavor to establish the characteristics of individualism in the essays as well as its significance (Western Culture Global 1).
Self Reliance by Ralph Waldo
Waldo’s essay on Self reliance was written in the early 1830s and published first in 1841. The main theme in self reliance was on “trust thyself” as he tried to encourage people to believe in themselves without fear of societal disapproval. He starts his essay with emphasis on defining “Genius”. He claims that intelligent people usually realize how envy is ignorance and professes self trust. He goes on to say that to heed to Gods call is to put one’s thought into use, since God has made each and everyone unique.
He discusses societal disapproval as well as foolish consistency as the main obstacles to self reliance and trust in one’s self. He believes that society’s emphasis on conformity destroys people’s ability to be innovative and genius. The other factor he emphasizes is self-worth, in which he encourages individuals’ responsibility and right to think for themselves (Buell 64).
Characteristics of Individualism
There are several characteristics of individualists as conveyed by Waldo in his essay “self reliance”. These include the “I” identity, which according to him helps one to believe in his unique gifts from God. He also encourages people to think for themselves and trust in their deeds without considering societal disapproval.
In this regards, he tries to define genius as a characteristic of individualism and believing in one’s thoughts. Waldo goes on to encourage self-worth as it gives people the confidence, responsibility and right to think for themselves without regard to societal disapprovals and conformity, among others. Other characteristics emphasized by Waldo include shunning societal disapprovals as well as foolish consistency (Western Culture Global 1).
Significance of individualism
Individualism as portrayed by Waldo in his essay on self reliance seeks to make geniuses and individualists who can think for themselves without involving influence from the society. Societies seek to ensure people conform to similar values and actions. In addition they emphasize the need to be consistent with these values. This is foolish consistency, according to Waldo, and he therefore encourages individuals to trust in themselves as they are uniquely created (eNotes.com, Inc. 1).
Conclusion
Ralph Waldo’s essay on self reliance was written as early as 1930s but was first published in 1941. He encourages people to think for themselves and trust in their deeds without considering societal disapproval or other obstacles such as foolish consistency which the society emphasizes.
The author advocates for self reliance as an initial stage of development and not the goal. He also states that self reliance is not anti-community. In essence, he encourages individuals to believe in their potentials and put efforts to achieve them without distractions (Richardson 99).
Works Cited
Buell, Lawrence. “Emerson”. Cambridge. Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 2003: 64.