Column on Individualism Revisited

Individualism Revisited
Tibor R. Machan
When one regards people as mere parts of some group, like a tribe or race,
individual guilt versus innocence does not matter. Nor does due process
for establishing guilt. What matters is to strengthen one’s own and weaken
the opposite group. Individuals as individuals have no significance for
people who think only the group is of significance.
Such people think of individuals the way one might think of some small
segment of one’s body. Whether to damage this small segment is to be
decided based on whether such damage would hurt one’s body as a whole.
Sometimes removing such a small part can help, sometimes hurt. What
matters to such collectivist type thinking is whether the group gains or
loses.
Ironically quite a few thinkers in the West encourage such tribal ways of
looking at people. When someone like the Canadian philosopher Charles
Taylor asserts that individuals literally belong to their group–rather
than to themselves–they pretty much lend credence to the thinking that
discounts individuals as such. The implication is that individuals count
only because they make some group viable or powerful. We think a little
like this when we consider sports teams or a nation’s military. What seems
to matter is the group.
Individualism, American style, is the antidote to this kind of thinking
about human beings. If one comes to realize that individuals are ends in
themselves, not mere tools for the group, the kind of confrontations that
take place these days–often involving terrorists who think of people in
such communal fashion–are less likely to occur. It takes a total
discounting of, for example, a young child as an individual of independent
value or significance in order to be able to treat it as disposable, a
mere tool in a power game. Never mind that the individual who is being
disposed of deserved nothing of the sort of treatment to which he or she
is being subjected. That the individual didn’t act aggressively toward
anyone doesn’t matter in terms of such group think since no individual is
credited with a will of his or her own.
Sadly the individualism that pretty much disarms the group hostilities
among us–that discourages thinking of people as but elements of a
fortress and sees them independently, to be dealt with on the basis of
their individual choices and conduct–is not in vogue among those who
address issues of politics and human nature. The way someone like Karl
Marx and his followers and admirers–and yes, there are many such people
left–view us, namely specie beings, ones whose identity depends totally
on their membership in the group (in Marx’s case humanity), any respect
for individuals can easily vanish. What counts is how someone bolsters the
standing of his or her group.
Of course there is ample opportunity under individualism for people to
immerse themselves in groups–corporations, orchestras, football teams,
sororities–and appear not to count for much as individuals. But that is
only appearance. In free societies one joins such groups for one’s own
purposes. The individual’s goals matter first, at least in most cases,
while the group comes together so as to serve such interests. The
organization of the groups will reflect this and there is always in most
free countries the exit option.
But when the group comes first–as in a fighting military unit (although
only when made up conscripts)–the individual isn’t free to leave it. This
exerts great pressure on individuals to conform, not remain “loyal,”
whatever their own convictions about the group’s purposes may be. (In
fact, of course, such group think merely anoints some members of the group
as superior to the rest.)
Ironically, individualism would seem to encourage just the kind of
conditions among human beings that are often used to urge conformity to
the group and communal attitudes, namely, peace and harmony. Herding
people into groups to which they didn’t chose to belong does not encourage
genuine solidarity and loyalty. So it seems that effective group projects
actually presuppose that individuals matter most, including their
decisions to be members of the group.
Tribal thinking was a mistake, albeit one that could be appreciated since
often the survival and flourishing of individuals depends very much on
being united with others, forming a solid group. But realizing this should
not obscure the fact that the only valid point of the tribe is to provide
safety and opportunity for growth to the individuals in it. In the case of
human beings the significance of the individual is primary since
everything worthwhile comes from individual initiative–science,
philosophy, art, entertainment–even while that initiative is enriched
when combined with that of others.
Some promote rugged individualism, a perverse idealization of the hermit.
Sure, at times total independence can have it uses, fraternity is more
natural to human beings. This should not, however, obscure the centrality
of the individual in human life.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s