Individualism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Liberalism series, part of the Politics series
Development History of liberal thought Contributions to liberal theory Schools American liberalism Classical liberalism Conservative liberalism National liberalism Economic liberalism Libertarianism Neoliberalism Ordoliberalism Paleoliberalism Social liberalism Cultural liberalism Ideas Freedom Individual rights Individualism Laissez-faire Liberal democracy Liberal neutrality Negative & positive liberty Free market Capitalism Mixed economy Open society Popular sovereignty Rights Thinkers John Locke John Stuart Mill Friedrich von Hayek Milton Friedman John Rawls Regional variants By Country Liberalism worldwide Liberalism in Europe Liberalism in the United States Organizations Liberal parties of the world Liberal International IFLRY ELDR ALDE LYMEC CALD ALN Relial
Portal:Politics This box: view • talk • edit

Part of the series on Libertarianism

Schools of thought Agorism Anarcho-capitalism Autarchism Christian libertarianism Geolibertarianism Green libertarianism Individualist anarchism Left-libertarianism Libertarian socialism Libertarian feminism Free-market anarchism Market socialism Minarchism Mutualism Neolibertarianism Paleolibertarianism Progressive libertarianism Propertarianism Right-libertarianism Rights libertarianism Voluntaryism Origins Objectivism Austrian School Chicago School Classical liberalism Individualist anarchism Ideas Civil liberties Counter-economics Decriminalization Economic freedom Free markets Free trade Free will Freedom of contract Homestead principle Humanism Individualism Laissez-faire Liberty Natural rights Night watchman state Non-aggression Non-interventionism Private property Self-government Self-ownership Subjectivism Tax resistance Topics History Movement Controversies within libertarianism Parties Theories of law Views of rights Criticism of libertarianism Related Civil libertarianism Constitutionalism Libertarian Democrat Libertarian Republican Libertarian transhumanism Philosophy Portal Politics Portal  v • d • e

Part of the Philosophy series on Anarchism

Schools of thought Buddhist · Capitalist · Christian Collectivist · Communist · Crypto Feminist · Green · Individualist Info · Insurrectionary · Leftist Pacifist · Philosophical Platformist · Post · Post-leftist Primitivist · Social · Syndicalist Without adjectives Theory and practice Anarch · Anarchy · Black bloc Communes · Consensus democracy Decentralization · Deep ecology Direct action · Direct democracy Dual power · Especifismo Horizontalism · Illegalism Individual reclamation · Law Participatory politics Permanent Autonomous Zone Prefigurative politics Propaganda of the deed Refusal of work · Rewilding Social ecology · Spontaneous order Issues Anarcho-capitalism · Animal rights Capitalism · Criticisms · Islam Marxism · Nationalism Orthodox Judaism · Religion Violence History Amakasu Incident · Anarchist Catalonia · Anarchist Exclusion Act Anarchy in Somalia · Australian Anarchist Centenary Celebrations Barcelona May Days Carnival Against Capitalism Escuela Moderna · Hague Congress Haymarket affair · High Treason Incident · International Anarchist Congress of Amsterdam · Kate Sharpley Library · Kronstadt rebellion Labadie Collection · LIP · May 1968 May Day · Paris Commune Provo · Red inverted triangle Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine · Spanish Revolution Third Russian Revolution · Tragic Week · WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity Culture Anarcho-punk · Arts · Black anarchism Celtic anarchism · Culture jamming DIY culture · Freeganism Independent Media Center Infoshop · The Internationale Jewish anarchism · Lifestylism Popular education · Radical cheerleading · Radical environmentalism · Squatting Symbolism · To the Barricades Economics Agorism · Capitalism · Collectivism Communism · Co-operatives Counter-economics · Free market Free school · Free store · Geoism Gift economy · Market abolitionism Mutual aid · Mutualism Participatory economics Really Really Free Market Self-ownership · Socialism Syndicalism · Wage slavery Workers' self-management By region Africa · Austria · Brazil · Canada China · Cuba · England · France Greece · India · Ireland · Israel Italy · Japan · Korea · Mexico Poland · Russia · Spain · Sweden Turkey · Ukraine · USA · Vietnam Lists Anarcho-punk bands · Books Communities · Fictional characters Jewish anarchists · Musicians Organizations · Periodicals · Poets Related Anti-capitalism · Anti-communism Anti-consumerism · Anti-corporatism Anti-globalization · Antimilitarism Anti-statism · Antiwar · Autarchism Autonomism · Labour movement Left communism · Libertarianism Libertarian Marxism · Libertarian socialism · Situationist International Anarchism Portal Philosophy Portal · Politics Portal  v • d • e

Individualism is a term used to describe a moral, political, or social outlook that stresses human independence and the importance of individual self-reliance and liberty. Individualists promote the exercise of individual goals and desires. They oppose most external interference with an individual's choices - whether by society, the state, or any other group or institution. Individualism is therefore opposed to views based on collectivism or statism, which stress that communal, community, group, societal, or national goals should take priority over individual goals. Individualism is also opposed to tradition, religion, or any other form of external moral standard being used to limit an individual's choice of actions.

Individualism has a controversial relationship with egoism (selfishness). While some individualists are egoists, they usually do not argue that selfishness is inherently good. Rather, some argue that individuals are not duty-bound to any socially-imposed morality and that individuals should be free to choose to be selfish (or to choose any other lifestyle) if they so desire. Others, such as Ayn Rand, argue against moral relativism and argue selfishness is a virtue. Others still argue against both moral relativism and egoism.

Contents 1 Etymology 2 Political individualism 3 Individualism and society 4 Economic individualism 5 Individualism and US history 6 The Essence of Individualism 6.1 "Thinking Without Thinking" 6.2 Individualism & "Common Sense" 6.3 Individualism vs. Conformity 6.4 Choice & Free Will 7 References 8 Further reading 9 See also 10 External links

[edit] Etymology

The concept of "individualism" was first used by the French Saint-Simonian socialists, to describe what they believed was the cause of the disintegration of French society after the 1789 Revolution. The term was however already used (pejoratively) by reactionary thinkers of the French Theocratic School, such as Joseph de Maistre, in their opposition to political liberalism. The Saint-Simonians did not see political liberalism as the problem though, but saw in "individualism" a form of "egoism" or "anarchy," the "ruthless exploitation of man by man in modern industry." While the conservative anti-individualists attacked the political egalitarianism brought about by the Revolution, the Saint-Simonians criticized laissez-faire (economic liberalism), for its perceived failure to cope with the increasing inequality between rich and poor. Socialism, a word introduced by the Saint-Simonians, was to bring about "social harmony."^[1][2][3]

In the English language, the word "individualism" was first introduced, as a pejorative, by the Owenites in the 1830s, although it is unclear if they were influenced by Saint-Simonianism or came up with it independently.^[3] A more positive use of the term in Britain came to be used with the writings of James Elishama Smith, who was a millenarian and a Christian Israelite. Although an early Owenite socialist, he eventually rejected its collective idea of property, and found in individualism a "universalism" that allowed for the development of the "original genius." Without individualism, Smith argued, individuals cannot amass property to increase one's happiness.^[3] William Maccall, another Unitarian preacher, and probably an acquaintance of Smith, came somewhat later, although influenced by John Stuart Mill, Thomas Carlyle, and German Romanticism, to the same positive conclusions, in his 1847 work "Elements of Individualism".^[1]

[edit] Political individualism

In political philosophy, the individualist theory of government holds that the state should take a merely defensive role by protecting the liberty of each individual to act as he or she wishes as long he or she does not infringe on the same liberty of another. This contrasts with collectivist political theories, where, rather than leaving the individual to pursue his or her own ends, the state ensures that the individual serves the interests of society when taken as a whole. The term has also been used to describe "individual initiative" and "freedom of the individual" in general, perhaps best described by the French term "laissez faire," a verb meaning "to let [the people] do" [for themselves what they know how to do].

In practice, individualists are chiefly concerned with protecting individual autonomy against obligations imposed by social institutions (such as the state). Many individualists pay particular attention to protecting the liberties of the minority against the wishes of the majority and see the individual as the smallest minority. For example, individualists oppose democratic systems unless constitutional protections exist that do not allow individual liberty to be diminished by the interests of the majority. These concerns encompass both civil and economic liberties. One typical concern is opposition to any concentration of commercial and industrial enterprise in the hands of the state, and the municipality. The principles upon which this opposition is based are mainly two: that popularly-elected representatives are not likely to have the qualifications, or the sense of responsibility, required for dealing with the multitudinous enterprises, and the large sums of public money involved in civic administration; and that the "health of the state" depends upon the exertions of individuals for their personal benefit (who, "like cells", are the containers of the life of the body). Individualism may take a radicalist approach, as in individualist anarchism.

For some political individualists, who hold a view known as methodological individualism, the word "society" can never refer to anything more than a very large collection of individuals. Society does not have an existence above or beyond these individuals, and thus cannot be properly said to carry out actions, since actions require intentionality, intentionality requires an agent, and society as a whole cannot be properly said to possess agency; only individuals can be agents. The same holds for the government. Under this view, a government is composed of individuals; despite that democratic governments are elected by popular vote, the fact remains that all of the activities of government are carried out by means of the intentions and actions of individuals. Strictly speaking, the government itself does not act. For example, the point is sometimes made that "we" have decided to enact a certain policy, and sometimes this usage is used to imply that the entity known as "society" supports the policy and thus it is justified. The methodological individualist points out that "we" in fact did not enact or carry out this policy; among those who voted, a certain group of people voted for the policy, individuals all, and another group voted against it. The decision that emerged was not made by the "people", or by the "government"; it was made by those on the winning side of the vote. This is significant because in any collective there exists individuals who oppose the policy whose wills are being overridden, and the use of "we" tends to obscure that fact. The individualist wishes to highlight the importance of the individual and prevent subsumption into a collective. For these reasons, methodological individualists tend to disagree with claims such as "we deserve the government we have, because we are doing it to ourselves," since perhaps that individual and very possibly many others disagree with the actions of the individuals who hold government power. That said, many individualists are willing to use "we" in reference to government or society as a convenient shorthand as long as the fact that these entities are composed of individuals is kept in mind.

[edit] Individualism and society

Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "social contract" maintains that each individual is under implicit contract to submit his own will to the "general will." This advocacy of subordinating the individual will to a collective will is in fundamental opposition to the individualist philosophy. An individualist enters into society to further his own interests, or at least demands the right to serve his own interests, without taking the interests of society into consideration (an individualist need not be an egoist). The individualist does not lend credence to any philosophy that requires the sacrifice of the self-interest of the individual for any higher social causes. Rousseau would argue, however, that his concept of "general will" is not the simple collection of individual wills and precisely furthers the interests of the individual (the constraint of law itself would be beneficial for the individual, as the lack of respect for the law necessarily entails, in Rousseau's eyes, a form of ignorance and submission to one's passions instead of the preferred autonomy of reason).

Societies and groups can differ, in the extent to which they are based upon predominantly "self-regarding" (individualistic, and arguably self-interested) rather than "other-regarding" (group-oriented, and group, or society-minded) behaviour. Ruth Benedict argued that there is also a distinction, relevant in this context, between "guilt" societies (e.g. medieval Europe) with an "internal reference standard", and "shame" societies (e.g. Japan, "bringing shame upon one's ancestors") with an "external reference standard", where people look to their peers for feedback on whether an action is "acceptable" or not (also known as "group-think").

The extent to which society, or groups are "individualistic" can vary from time to time, and from country to country. For example, Japanese society is more group-oriented (e.g. decisions tend to be taken by consensus among groups, rather than by individuals), and it has been argued that "personalities are less developed" (than is usual in the West). The USA is usually thought of as being at the individualistic (its detractors would say "atomistic") end of the spectrum (the term "Rugged Individualism" is a cultural imprint of being the essence of Americanism), whereas European societies are more inclined to believe in "public-spiritedness", state "socialistic" spending, and in "public" initiatives.^{[citation needed]}

John Kenneth Galbraith made a classic distinction between "private affluence and public squalor" in the USA, and private squalor and public affluence in, for example, Europe, and there is a correlation between individualism and degrees of public sector intervention and taxation.

Individualism is often contrasted with either totalitarianism or collectivism, but in fact there is a spectrum of behaviors ranging at the societal level from highly individualistic societies (e.g. the USA) through mixed societies (a term the UK has used in the post-World War II period) to collectivist. Also, many collectivists (particularly supporters of collectivist anarchism or libertarian socialism) point to the enormous differences between liberty-minded collectivism and totalitarian practices.

Individualism, sometimes closely associated with certain variants of individualist anarchism, libertarianism or classical liberalism, typically takes it for granted that individuals know best and that public authority or society has the right to interfere in the person's decision-making process only when a very compelling need to do so arises (and maybe not even in those circumstances). This type of argument is often observed in relation to policy debates regarding regulation of industries, as well as in relation to personal choice of lifestyle.

[edit] Economic individualism

The doctrine of economic individualism holds that each individual should be allowed autonomy in making his own economic decisions as opposed to those decisions being made by the state, or the community, for him. Moreover, it advocates the private ownership of property as opposed to state or collective arrangements.^{[citation needed]} Advocates of capitalism often claim that capitalism is the economic system most closely based on these views, while individualist anarchists and mutualists such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Benjamin Tucker contend that capitalism crushes individuality.^{[citation needed]} In some countries, corporations have gained for themselves the legal status of individual persons.

[edit] Individualism and US history

At the time of the formation of the United States, many of its citizens had fled from state or religious oppression in Europe and were influenced by the egalitarian and fraternal ideals that later found expression in the French revolution. Such ideas influenced the framers of the U.S. Constitution (the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans) who believed that the government should seek to protect individual rights in the constitution itself; this idea later led to the Bill of Rights. According to Ronald Scollon, the "fundamental American ideology of individualism" can be summarized by the following two statements: 1. The individual is the basis of all reality and all society. 2. The individual is defined by what he or she is not." Explaining the latter statement, he says that American individualism emphasizes that the individual is not subject to arbitrary laws, and not subject to domination by historical precedent and preference.^[4]

[edit] The Essence of Individualism

At its core, individualism is nothing more than a dedication to careful thought. Individualist principles cannot be found in moral, political or economic “action” because action can only be valued with respect to the reasons that guide it. For instance, imagine that hard work is objectively valuable; you may feel inclined to judge a hard-worker favorably. But then imagine that her sole reason for working hard is that you will judge her favorably for it; imagine that she will stop when no longer observed. If you know this, you may judge her quite differently. Similarly, after brief observation, you may incorrectly label idle workers as lazy. The point is that snippets of action tell us nothing about the principles that guide action, and in this respect, individualism cannot be ascribed to individuals who have not testified about their thought processes.

But it is natural to infer others’ reasons in order to judge actions immediately. Should you rescue a child from a burning building, others will be quick to praise you under the assumption that you were guided by selfless care for another’s safety. They will not only ignore the proposition that your bravado was feigned for the sole purpose of receiving accolades, but they will also refuse to question whether the motives they’ve inferred are even objectively valuable. This strikes at the essence of individualism; a true individualist reevaluates core assumptions and inferences because, with a firm grasp of logical principles, the individualist knows that all ideas that are not logically provable are subject to change upon the existence of new compelling evidence. The individualist recognizes that another person should not be able to recognize an individualist on the basis of his observable actions. If one chooses to reject prevailing authority, she may be a thoughtless rebel or a thoughtful individualist; the action alone gives no indication as to which.

The essence of individualism is to choose the standards one aspires to. One may choose majority standards, minority standards, original standards, or no standards at all. Again, the actual choice does not prove individualist reasoning – one must look to the reasoning itself. Thus the only defining quality of an individualist is that she uses a personal command of logical principles to give all options a fair and equal evaluation before making a decision or conclusion. This process should certainly include evaluation of existing standards widely held. The individualist relies on her own judgment only to the extent that, after much evaluation, she finds it objectively superior to that of another.

Without delving deep into linguistics and the effects of connotation, it’s fair to point out that the immediate conditioned judgments humans make are mostly rational and mostly beneficial and are not necessarily anti-individualist. Also, they’re easily adjustable upon acquisition of new information. They can be thought of as “pre-reasoned” responses based on our vocabularies and our experiences and observations. Mostly, they serve us well, especially at times when judgments are irrelevant or when it is terribly inefficient to ask and answer questions endlessly. Evolutionary scientists see conditioned judgments as survival tools derivative of the fundamental dilemma: fight or flight. Our conditioned responses make economical use of our minds, so that we may devote our time to other thoughts and concerns. There is but one caveat: conditioned responses are shortcuts; they cannot provide answers to complex questions, and if their owners do not maintain them with frequent adjustment, they may serve to propagate logically misguided information even with respect to simple concepts.^[5]

[edit] "Thinking Without Thinking"

In his book Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking^[6], journalist Malcolm Gladwell posits that conditioned responses are extremely beneficial to the expert mind. He gives an example of a therapist who can predict that a relationship is doomed after hearing mere snippets of a couple’s conversations. What Gladwell interprets as miraculous judgment is as easily interpreted as exceptional internal command of the rules of logic. Concocting meanings and patterns in random abstract data is relatively easy, but it is not easy to prove truth from random data with consistency and accuracy. Imagine every possible observation that one could make with respect to a patient: think of a patient’s seated posture, speech patterns, clothing, habits, interests. Numerous correlations will appear obvious, but many will be coincidental, many will be too ambiguous, and many will be imagined. To prove truth with accuracy is to subject data to such rigorous scrutiny that a conviction as to its meaning can be held beyond reasonable doubt. The words of rigorous logical scrutiny are rightfully the same words of criminal justice. The therapist’s accuracy stems not from magical ability to find telling patterns in data but from her constant testing of all perceived patterns against logic, after which she discards the irrelevant and improvident, retains and organizes a working mental catalogue of the valid and provable, and quickly applies the same to new factual contexts by analogy. To do this instantly may require a remarkable intellect, but any average mind, given enough time, is certainly capable of such a process. Criminal verdicts are not the product of experts; they’re the product of randomly selected humans forced to apply rigorous logical rules as instructed in order to reach a thoroughly justifiable judgment. This begs the question of why average humans do not attend other important judgments with such rigor. Brilliant minds may conceive of logic inherently and use it swiftly, but given time and effort, logic can be learned and applied by all. Use of logic helps illustrate this very point: genius is sufficient to grasp it but not necessary. The essence of individualism is partly found in the determination to observe the world through a lens of logical scrutiny. The implication is that conditioned judgments that are the product of such a process may be extremely beneficial. However, sound judgments and unsound judgments cannot be distinguished facially. The individualist understands this, and thus, she remains skeptical of all judgments until she conducts independent analysis using the tools of logic.^[7]

[edit] Individualism & "Common Sense"

At odds with logic is the principle of “common sense.” The two are sometimes used interchangeably, but they most definitely describe adverse methods of reasoning. The term “common sense” refers, quite naturally, to sense that is common. That is, it assumes there is a correlation between the popularity of a proposition and its truthfulness. For example, “common sense” originally suggested to humans that the planet was flat. Modernly, "common sense" is used to describe propositions that are “facially intuitive” per, allegedly, any reasonable individual’s independent judgment. While this idea disowns the groupthink fallacy, it’s still not an improvement because it remains subject to the flat-earth problem and asks the independent mind to accept a judgment on the basis of facial appearance. This causes the propagation of popular albeit erroneous judgments when facial appearance is deceptive as to objective reality. For example, consider the once facially intuitive proposition that, “Man cannot fly,” and then consider the individualist mentality with which the Wright brothers approached it.

Common sense – one of the most popular sources of conditioned automatic judgments – is by its very nature a logical fallacy. Common sense suggests: “This seems like it’s probably true.” Logic asks: “Is it at all possible that this is not true?” If one values truth, one should ask logic’s question instead of repeating common sense’s statement. Observing and experiencing the world through the lens of logic may lead one to develop conditioned automatic judgments that are virtually unassailable. And, conversely, to refuse this lens is an implicit admission that one’s conditioned judgments and conceptions may have no actual basis in functional truth. This creates some interesting questions. For instance, would human interaction be more efficient if all rules of logic were widely appreciated? Beyond geometry, American public schools do not teach logic; if they did, would conditioned judgments improve or cease to exist? Would marketing and media industries lose power and influence in a nation where citizens are better equipped to interpret and scrutinize data and claims of truth? Or do conditioned judgments make interaction more efficient even when untrue or misguided? These concerns precede the quest to define individualism, yet they’re wholly central to it because individualism consistently invokes implicit rejection of collective thought and “conformity.”^[8]

[edit] Individualism vs. Conformity

When “individualism” is alleged to be adverse to “conformity,” the proposition renders both words functionally meaningless. Conformity, at base level and regarding human relations, describes action for which the intended outcome is some form of increased homogeneity. The word alone should carry no connotation; it’s merely an objective description and can apply to anything from standardized meal consumption times to hygiene expectations. It is impossible to imagine how an ideology, person or group could oppose such a general and naturally occurring concept; to do so would be to spew fanciful sanctimonious delusions.

Any comparison between conformity and individualism mistakenly elevates form over substance. Since human behavior is choreographed by the mind, actions become a proxy for criticism of a thought process, or lack thereof. Thus, the relevant criticisms miss the point and render themselves an embarrassment to the principles they purport to advocate.

Decisions to conform can be made in three ways: intentionally, after conscious thought (i.e. a desire to imitate); unintentionally, after conscious thought (i.e. a desire to act in a certain way that coincidentally imitates an existing way); or indifferently, after conscious thought (i.e. no desire to act, but inaction still amounts to conformity).

Criticism is most likely to be levied at intentional imitation, but this still amounts to hypocrisy as almost all human behavior is a form of imitation. To be valuable, criticism of “conformity” must delve significantly deeper; the only valid target of criticism is one’s reasoning process (not her actions), and the only acceptable argument is against one whose actions are detrimentally unreasoned despite choice and ability to reason. Observable action labeled as “conformity” tells us nothing about individualism in the same way that correlation tells us nothing about causation. The question should not be: “Are one's actions a conformist imitation?” The question should be: “Who or what is she imitating and why?” That question elicits true reflection on independent reasoning; it asks one to independently justify the standards she chooses to aspire to. Again, while one's observable choice may invite inference or assumption, the choice alone does not prove its reasons.^[9]

[edit] Choice & Free Will

The essence of individualism is to choose one’s own standards, or ignore standards entirely, so long as that decision is well-reasoned. The alternative would be to place action before independent thought – to allow the standards of others to supply the reasons for one’s actions. This may suffice for anyone some of the time, but it should be fundamentally obvious that, for it to be a uniformly sound practice, one must be either inherently indifferent to the outcome of her actions or wholly dependent on another’s interpretation and value-judgment of the outcome. In this respect, one lives by the will and whim of another or by no will at all and is thus dangerously subject to persuasion given at least the minimum level of credible impetus that caused her to act in the first place.

One’s independent judgment reflects her will, her desires and her own reasoned valuations. Thus, only one’s independent judgment can or should command one’s actions if she seeks to be an individual rather than an employee of another’s desires.^[10]

[edit] References

[edit] Further reading

• Emerson, Ralph Waldo (1847). Self-Reliance. London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd.. ISBN. 
• Dumont, Louis (1986). Essays on Individualism: Modern Ideology in Anthropological Perspective. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-16958-8. 
• Lukes, Steven (1973). Individualism. New York: Harper & Row. ISBN 0-631-14750-0. 
• Renaut, Alain (1999). The Era of the Individual. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-02938-5. 
• Rand, Ayn (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness. Signet Book. ISBN 0-451-16393-1. 
• Shanahan, Daniel. (1991) Toward a Genealogy of Individualism. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. ISBN 0-870-23811-6.
• Watt, Ian. (1996) Myths of Modern Individualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-48011-6.

[edit] See also

• Anarchism
• Collectivism (antonym)
• Anarcho-capitalism
• Contrarian
• Independent
• Individualist anarchism
• Libertarianism
• Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
• Existentialism
• Self-ownership
• Tragedy of the commons
• Tragedy of the anticommons
• Communitarianism
• Individuation

[edit] External links

• The New Individualist magazine
• Individual-I
• the i campaign
• Individualistic sensitivity by Georges Palente roughly translated into English
• The Individual as God essay
• Where the Individual Counts
• The Ayn Rand Institute