Collectivism and Individualism

An analysis of this dichotomy

Introduction

Through the great conflicts of the 20th century, the deliberation between a collectivised society, and an individualistic one. Both through sides of the cold war, through their demagogery, and propaganda, have vilified the other side, whilst chanting the praise of their own. The economic link to the societal one is crucial in understanding this dichotomy. Indeed the relationship between the distribution of resources, and of labor in society, is intrinsincally linked to the material worth human beings can acquire, which has for most of human history, been, at least ostentaciously, a visible marker of rank, value, and worth. Which side is more right then? And what does right mean? Right morally, scientifically, economically? Does the answer lie in between? Perhaps, as we have seen extreme dangers linked to excesses in both of these realms.

Diagnosing the Sickness

Collectivism

It is easy to assimilate collectivism, with pain and anguish, and to view it as problematic today, given the failure of the USSR, and the excesses communism has made in the previous century. Beyond the instantiated errors of communist countries leading to dictatorship (which often is seen as epistemological proof of the inconsistency of collectivist thought with human nature) and economic failure, there is the pathos of people in said countries. From anhiliation of the individual, kept as only a representative of the collective, these excesses continue today, in the form of the need to identify with various groups: “republican”, “democrat”, “black”, “white”.

When the collective is taken as the basis for the definition of the individual, when an element is no longer simply caracterised by the groups he is a member of, but defined by them, when he becomes nothing but an intersection of categories, he loses himself, his volition is null and void, he is not, but an instantiation of larger groups whom have collective goals and aspirations, any person whom wishes other than the collective is nullified by this definition.

Individualism

Thus it is easy to precieve individualism as the antidote to collectivism. And while its damage is much less openly visible, it remains perniciously problematic. On the opposite end of collectivism, when the individual, is, within an essentialist framework, defined by nothing but himself, free to do as he pleases, and with nothing owed to the collective, the individual is too erratic, too uncontrollable. When what defines you is but that which differentiates you from others, if you are yourself only through emancipation from the reigns of from the collective, then the collective disperses and dissapears. Aid and relations are inhibited: kinship, friendship, these words lose meaning. And we find ourselves in the individualised world of today, wherein people are all alone, even when together. If you’re existence is contingent upon extraction from the group, then breaking social links, and irrationally defining yourself through the complementary characteristics of the group. This led to “counter-culture”, not born out of a wish to achieve specific goals, but rather to distance from the collective, to be different, to change, for the sake of change.

Is this nothing more than conservatism and progressivism?

The answer is that these notions are by definition separate from it. Conservatism, by essence, aims to preserve the current or previous societal state, be it collectivist or individualist. Today individualism is advocated from the right side of the aisle, but as said above the counter-culture movements were not conservative in the least.

A solution to this dichotomy

The solution to these excesses lies in carefully balancing personal liberty, and societal duty. Where exactly this line lies depends on the ideology leading it. Islam, for example, argues for soceital duty to family, and the religious community: namely deciding obligations for fathers and mothers, obligation of marriage, to protect children and obligation of reproduction. Similarly it advocates for personal liberty in the choice of faith, ability to practice it, equality of value in individuals regardless of origin, class, race, and faith.

This means people may pursue personal will, as long as they balance it with respect and fulfillment of duty to the collective.