Law, Legislation and Liberty - THE PARADOX OF THE INDIVIDUAL & THE COLLECTIVE
Individualism, as a concept, beyond the reality that
individuals exist within a group or community, has, in part, found its origins
in the protestant privilege to be one’s own conduit to god. This comment is made
in a value-neutral context, that is to say, individualism was given a forum due
to the empowerment of the individual in protestant worship modalities, relative
to the centralized modality of Catholicism and other religions. The concept of
an individual as an ideal also found support in the enlightenment movement,
where it was fashionable to construct one’s own map of reality away from the
church and traditional norms. To an extent, Stoicism, as a byproduct of the
need to be free of human want, in this case, the needing for typical social
interactions, has served to shore the
other contributing factors to becoming an individual.
With the advent of mass media a homogenization of society began
to occur, the individual at once gained access to a larger volume of
information to feed individualism, however, the communitization of the general
societal narrative resulted in the perception of the Individual being distilled
down to perhaps a dozen stereotypes – a circumstance that had “character type”
and “Individual” becoming synonymous. Individualism incurred a challenge with
the escalation of media influence; in much the same way that the homogenization
of theology had done in earlier times.
Individualism tends to be challenged in the general
discourse of humanity, as Individuals become challenged they seek support from
others, and from there a collective within a given society begins to form. As the
collective coalesces around an imperative or common desire, the organization begins
to demand a degree of uniformity – and so, uniformity and Individualism are inversely
proportionate or at least inverse to one another – proportionality is affected
by what drove the coalescence at the outset. Oft times, like the coalescence of individuals
to a collective takes place in the face of extreme human conditions, where the
group is highly dependent or a unified front, hazing mechanisms are utilized “break
down” the individual, to effect a state of merged egos or perhaps a “common ego”.
The individual is then wholly defined by their association with a group.
It may be said in general terms, that a commonage derived from like-minded
individuals, who have coalesced in a common interest or cause finds a generally healthier
state of being, than, a commonage formed of conscription and hazing. The
commonage of free accumulation finds common action by responding to environmental
realities from a core set of beliefs; the commonage that forms from
conscription finds common action at the behest of a central power entity. The
commonage of fee accumulation is very difficult to corrupt, as ideals inform
action, and the association began in a healthier place, in a place of intellectual
commonality. By contrast, centralized power, absent support of the individual
expression is inherently corrupting – as the core of the centralized power
always works to its self-interest, as those subordinated seek to further their
lot through acquiring favour from the central power and work around the central
power for selfish and practical reasons.
It is important to note, that conscription takes many forms in
the creation of a commonage, the indoctrination of children to a given belief
structure is a form of conscription. Conditioning is a form of conscription.
Our very existence is conscription, by way of example, we are all conscripts of
the human race.
Individualism, or the act of developing one’s sense of
oneself as an independent entity, and the societal act of provisioning the
discovery process to build an individual, in no way impairs collective action,
it serves to diversify the informing of collective action. There is a common misperception
that Individualism and Collectivism are resident at opposite ends of a continuum;
the fact is however, they are mandatory companions existing as an entity. The
question is, under what conditions has the collective coalesced and by what
means it is being maintained – how these questions are answered determines the
health of a collective. A collective that permits individual expression and
functions under a premise of common ideas results in a reverse hierarchy, a
collective that emerges out of conscription of one type or another results in a
hierarchy that leads to a central power.
When the individual is co-opted by the collective, thought
that panders to leadership emerges – often effecting “group think” and disastrous
tangents in the human enterprise. When the individual within a collective is
nurtured, critical thought governs individual action, and by extension, thought
governs the collective – inherent in this reality is diversification of
power.
“The natural effort of every individual to better “their”
own condition is so powerful that it is alone, and without any assistance, not
only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity but of surmounting
a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often
encumbers its operations” Adam Smith
No comments:
Post a Comment