Is individualism more of Americanism than of Europeanism? Or of Asiatic?

[blazeofglory]

It has its impact everywhere, and whether political or social arenas. Or literature. Values change or get distorted when we are self-centered. Individualism has secluded us, though freedom is ample there the price one has to pay is higher than the benefit one derives from it. We need association, nexus of some sort in nature or in human society but individualism does not permit this, and people sacrificing association in the name of freedom or individualism are likely to suffer ultimately.
I think modern literature must readdress the pros and cons of polarized issues.


I want to hear more from you rather than babble with my own presumptions

[cacian]

Hi blazeglory by individualism do you mean driven one's own goals without the consideration of others?
Individualism is part of who we are and humans have very quickly realised the potential in individuality because it is an easy way out to get.
What I consider detrimental is individualism that is reliant on others.

[blazeofglory]

This is somewhat self-centeredness I am really concerned about, and in fact a growing sense of intense individuality is distancing, disintegrating humanity

[cacian]

I agree I think that the self centerdness the will to achieve the impossible at the expense of others is individualism at its worse. Individualism centred around one for the sake of others is the better one. We are after all dependent of each other long term.
Americanism is based on individualism because of how it started. The whole idea of America would not be if it was not for individuals turning their back on a society that has either failed them or did not go their way.
Leaving it all behind culture language and identity and sailing to the horizons to chase the dream of making better life out one that did not work.
America was an escape route for many because of oppressions dellusionment or failure. It was an opportunity to achieve the impossible to make something different out of what was left is individualism. Bravery courage and visions are part of individualism but did we get too carried away we lost sight of we were initially? The question real question is this: did it work? and what have we learned from it?

[loe]

Maybe I don't get it.
But I think individualism is very important - it is necessary to preserve one's identity, authenticity, prevents from playing a colourless standardized part in a system.
That what is to be criticised is egoism/selfishness.

(This may be just a formal distinction of words and I apologise in advance if individualism has also this meaning of egoism or egocentrism.)

[Phocion]

Maybe I don't get it.
But I think individualism is very important - it is necessary to preserve one's identity, authenticity, prevents from playing a colourless standardized part in a system.
That what is to be criticised is egoism/selfishness.

(This may be just a formal distinction of words and I apologise in advance if individualism has also this meaning of egoism or egocentrism.)

No, you are correct, the op has either picked a poor choice of words, or doesn't know what he is talking about.

Individualism is the driving force behind human progress: it is through individual innovation, and the conflict of opinion that we have managed escape the darkness of the middle-ages (when all bar the clergy were prevented from thinking for themselves - or at all, in fact). I direct you to J.S Mill's 'On Liberty', where he illustrates the importance of autonomy and the ability to pursue whatever life you so choose in the development of civilisation (this is supported by modern sociological studies that show people are more productive in cognitive activities if they are given the autonomy to pursue what they wish).

I will remind you that the kind of grand, collective goal that you seem to be talking up was behind just about every atrocity committed by humanity.

[tonywalt]

In terms of commerce it's much more common amongst Americans, lesser amongst Europeans(not by much), and much less common in Asia. It profiles itself best in when looking at inventions, as inventors are typically or any many ways single minded, non conformist, and individualistic.

Also it's quite glaring when doing business with the different cultures.

[cacian]

This is somewhat self-centeredness I am really concerned about, and in fact a growing sense of intense individuality is distancing, disintegrating humanity

Well blazeglory one must not lose sight that we are first and foremost individuals and therefore it is within us to conduct ourselves individualistically we have no choice.
The bigger the number we become the more we must learn to manage individualism with reliance and not let it top up our ideologism.
Humans are power driven that is because individualism is the main to it. Maintaining our individuality and at the same time managing to become part of a bigger individualism of people is the challenge. Working towards establishing a larger network of individuals together as one big fast and safe individualism where everyone looks out for everyone and themselves is individualism at its best.
It is possible to be part of an idea that is successful and effective because individualism has conquered its power sideand channelled it to become and be part of a larger individualism. Working towards one unified individualism involving many individuals is the idea.
It is the reverse effect if you like of egocentricity let's be egoistical together not apart.

[Phocion]

This is your only chance to be an individual, why would you not take advantage of it? If you want to be 'part of something' just be happy that you are a conscious part of the universe - and take advantage of it. Death is conformity, why make life so too?

[OrphanPip]

I don't think individualism means cutting people out and being an island onto yourself. The USA is certainly an individualistic society, but it also has one of the most developed civil societies, with a substantial net of organizations and associations which people freely congregate into. Personally, I see the collectivist v. individualism debate as a redundant product of Cold War Era post-colonial studies, it wasn't an accurate description of culture then and it still isn't today. There are no societies that emphasize solely the individual, or solely the community, it is just that cultures put different emphasis on what aspects of social interaction should be communal or individualized.

Edit: After all, it is the so-called individualist West that has the most substantial networks of social services for the elderly, the sick, and the unemployed.

[cacian]

This is your only chance to be an individual, why would you not take advantage of it? If you want to be 'part of something' just be happy that you are a conscious part of the universe - and take advantage of it. Death is conformity, why make life so too?

Death is comformity?
To comform is to die? I am not sure what you mean.
Death is an end to a cycle. Things come to an end because time stops from one in order to start for another. Death links one individual to another without it there is no continuity on earth because crowding would become the big issue.
Death is repository and has a purpose.
Life is its precedent and can only be because death is. The two are linked just like anything on this earth.

[Buh4Bee]

My opinion is:
The term individualism or "rugged individualism" is one that describes an attitude or a stance such as when a strong political view is embrace, leading to specific action. Of course the most well-known example of this in American history is the Puritans. You see examples of these kinds of people again and again throughout American history. This character of the rugged individual does suffer such consequences as facing isolationism, but it is a minimal sacrifice made allowing one to ultimately achieve freedom or "business" success". This character willingly suffers to achieve his ultimate glory. He may or may not be associated with a group, but always carries a "just" cause worth fighting for.

I am not sure if individualism is more "American" than other societies, but I believe that it is a deeply-rooted American idealism.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

America is at once individualist and collectivist. We are individualistic in the sense that we, as citizens, are encouraged to think for ourselves, express ourselves freely, and pursue our lives as we see fit (unless you want to be gay). But we're encouraged to vote for certain parties and "come together" on different issues. It can be an odd balance.

[tonywalt]

I would say for certain that Americans are in general not as bound to tradition (from the historical beginning) as say Europe, Asia etc...and that springs from the strong sense of individualism.

Another example: The British tend to have a strong Fear of Embarrassment. I hear it at least once a week, "this" or "that" "would be embarrassing" and Americans tend to not test the waters but jump bravely in (for better or worse). I think this also is spawned by the sense of individualism that is slightly stronger than other nationalities.

[Buh4Bee]

Sorry this post is a little disorganized, but it's late:

I completely agree with you MM, it is an odd balance. I think many Americans are very civic-minded, at least toward such issues as voting and knowing their rights- particularly concerning such freedoms as speech and religion. As a collective nation, we hold these truth to be our right,at least as individually, at a fundamental level. Most believe that you should follow your own religion and maintain your own views, but make sure that you perform your civic responsibility such as voting. Democracy means that people participate, as individuals. You will see this the strongest when people come out to vote. It is a great pride for the American people that they can choose their leader, and a deeper hope that when things fail our judicial system will still function. The individual has the right to choose and does not have to conform to the mainstream or popular vote (if this is the example you want to use.)

[cacian]

I guess diaspora comes to mind when American individualism is mentioned.

[blazeofglory]

Diaspora comes indeed. Society consists of a diversity, and that again consists of an assortment of social classes and therein comes again different thoughts. Individually centered ideas cocoon humans within their prejudices, narrowing down them to certain set patterns. Let us rise over and above these belittling predilections and keep embrace humanity holistically. We are one not individuals. Let us use the terms like socials, naturals, universals. Let us feel we all are one great whole, whether black, white, rich or poor, literate or illiterate. We are widening gaps by these narrow sentiments. Let us see the greater picture of humanity.

[tonywalt]

Diaspora comes indeed. Society consists of a diversity, and that again consists of an assortment of social classes and therein comes again different thoughts. Individually centered ideas cocoon humans within their prejudices, narrowing down them to certain set patterns. Let us rise over and above these belittling predilections and keep embrace humanity holistically. We are one not individuals. Let us use the terms like socials, naturals, universals. Let us feel we all are one great whole, whether black, white, rich or poor, literate or illiterate. We are widening gaps by these narrow sentiments. Let us see the greater picture of humanity.

British Forever and Proud. I'll be happy to personally "Diversify" your country with some of our immigration.

[Phocion]

Diaspora comes indeed. Society consists of a diversity, and that again consists of an assortment of social classes and therein comes again different thoughts. Individually centered ideas cocoon humans within their prejudices, narrowing down them to certain set patterns. Let us rise over and above these belittling predilections and keep embrace humanity holistically. We are one not individuals. Let us use the terms like socials, naturals, universals. Let us feel we all are one great whole, whether black, white, rich or poor, literate or illiterate. We are widening gaps by these narrow sentiments. Let us see the greater picture of humanity.
Your post appears like the embodiment of totalitarian kitsch, and disgusts me. Please don't use terms such as 'we' or 'us' when you are simply pulling random generalisations out of your ***.

The greater picture of humanity would be pretty repulsive imo.

[Shevek]

I find it interesting how often the categories individualism and collectivism automatically get applied to interactions within the public sphere. Americans are deemed individualistic because of how their governments deal with poverty (or don't), and I often hear about how Canadians are more "social" than Americans because of our (narrowly) better welfare state, but where do private interactions between friends, family, neighbourhood etc. fit in? I would say from my childhood experiences at a fairly politically active right-wing church that those who place a great deal of emphasis on individual responsibility also tend to value community organization and "family" (as both a unit and a political symbol), even more so than secular people living in the same community.

So in other words, I agree that the dichotomy of individualism/collectivism has run its course.

[BienvenuJDC]

America does a poor job dealing with poverty. The welfare program gives money away irresponsibly. It doesn't help people at all to give them food stamps and welfare checks. But I don't see how this relates to individualism?

[Shevek]

America does a poor job dealing with poverty. The welfare program gives money away irresponsibly. It doesn't help people at all to give them food stamps and welfare checks. But I don't see how this relates to individualism?

An "individualist" society places the burden of poverty onto the poor themselves, telling them it is their responsibility to alleviate their situations. A "collectivist" society, in theory, would intervene by helping the poor get out of poverty -- and in the West, that usually means a more significant welfare state. I do not believe that you can easily place each of today's nation-states along a spectrum of individualist-collectivist, but these are the distinctions I often hear and read about.

[JBI]

It is clearly not an East Asian value, though it is present, as every thought form is present, if not showing "official welcome.“ In Japan for instance, the individual is almost always a slave of society - work hard, make money, support the family, and die early. Societal pressures of the sort lead to high rates of suicide, and other nasty tendencies - and then when you die, inheritance tax, which is highest in Japan, cuts half your estate. I hear the societal pressures are more intense in Korea.

In China, the individual is subject to the will of the family, and the idea of personal autonomy is subject to the will of family, husband, parents, job, etc. Individual expression is never valued here, and creativity is squashed as it surfaces. Everything is for the sake of an ideal, and for the pockets of the few smart people up top, who will then embezzle hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on whores, cars, drugs, and other decadence.

The US, for all that I do not like it, really is the grounds for individualism, but the system is flawed in that because of lack of a equitable system, personal development has too much to do with family background.

[BienvenuJDC]

But there is the problem with your assessment...defining what "helping the poor" is. Consider the ancient Israeli society that helped the poor by rounding the corners of the fields. There was very clear direction in their law to help with poverty, but that did not mean to give them a handout, but to provide for them opportunity.


An "individualist" society places the burden of poverty onto the poor themselves, telling them it is their responsibility to alleviate their situations. A "collectivist" society, in theory, would intervene by helping the poor get out of poverty -- and in the West, that usually means a more significant welfare state. I do not believe that you can easily place each of today's nation-states along a spectrum of individualist-collectivist, but these are the distinctions I often hear and read about.

[Shevek]

Well, the notion of giving the poor "opportunities" in the absence of state intervention is often asserted by those who believe that poor people, not society, should bear the brunt of lifting themselves out of poverty. The individualist/collectivist distinction has more to do with attitudes towards helping the poor -- what you call handouts are often argued for on the basis that society, not just the individual, has a responsibility to help poor people (regardless of how effective they may be in practice). Anyway, I don't really advocate the dichotomy myself, but there can be some significant ideological differences reflected in giving the poor "opportunities," and providing a welfare state.

[BienvenuJDC]

You think that the State is the only form of collectivism. But there are other kinds of collectivism. For example, the church takes care of the poor and has in many different cultures.


Well, the notion of giving the poor "opportunities" in the absence of state intervention is often asserted by those who believe that poor people, not society, should bear the brunt of lifting themselves out of poverty. The individualist/collectivist distinction has more to do with attitudes towards helping the poor -- what you call handouts are often argued for on the basis that society, not just the individual, has a responsibility to help poor people (regardless of how effective they may be in practice). Anyway, I don't really advocate the dichotomy myself, but there can be some significant ideological differences reflected in giving the poor "opportunities," and providing a welfare state.

[Shevek]

If you read my first post in this thread you will see that I bring up that very example to challenge the individualist/collectivist dichotomy. So no, I don't think the state is the only form, although people usually advocate the welfare state on collectivist grounds, and argue against it on individualist grounds.

[Paulclem]

You think that the State is the only form of collectivism. But there are other kinds of collectivism. For example, the church takes care of the poor and has in many different cultures.

It could be regarded as the state absolving itself of it's responisibilities to its citizens. Both modes of thought are in the political sphere here in the UK, but if the state relies upon voluntary organisations, then there is no guarantee that help will be forthcoming without prejudice. If the state establishes its responsibility to its citizens, then this is less likely, and it can then sanction, as we currently do, other agencies to help in relief.

I see no essential difference in responsibility between a state's response to the plight of its citizens in other countries, and often expensive intervention is sanctioned, and the plight of the state's own poor. I can see how the two are regarded differently - citizens in difficulties in other countries often involves international scrutiny, and most countries try to maintain a protective and supportive stance, and so protect their international regard. With modern news media, it also becomes apparent when there is a poverty of response/ regard for a country's own people.

As for providing the means to self help rather than direct relief, I think both have to be done - one long term and one short term. To suggest that the multitudes of needs can be salved by providing means rather than direct aid is to misunderstand what happens to poor people, who often lurch into short term crises until they can stabilise themselves. With all the talk of boosting the economy and generating investment and demand, I really can't see why a government wouldn't want to use poor relief as a way of injecting some money into the economy. After all, poor people will spend it in the local economy, and use local business. Huge amounts of money have been pumped into quantitative easing - isn't relief merely an aspect of that?

[blazeofglory]

Individuality in its entirety has to do with self-centeredness. We want our voices to drown others’; we want our height to dwarf others’ height; we want our prosperity to mount and surmount over our relatives or anybody of our acquaintance.
Let us break the cocoon of our confinement and be ready to perceive the bigger picture of humanity. The world has lost some of the old wisdoms and now we are falling apart in our quest for wealth, self-indulgence. That is why today in this world we remain continentally, economically and politically are living in the great-divide.

I am not in for a hegemonic social construct. I always support human liberty. All that concerns me is about our apathetic attitude and individualism is kindling it

[Paulclem]

Individuality in its entirety has to do with self-centeredness. We want our voices to drown others’; we want our height to dwarf others’ height; we want our prosperity to mount and surmount over our relatives or anybody of our acquaintance.
Let us break the cocoon of our confinement and be ready to perceive the bigger picture of humanity. The world has lost some of the old wisdoms and now we are falling apart in our quest for wealth, self-indulgence. That is why today in this world we remain continentally, economically and politically are living in the great-divide.

I am not in for a hegemonic social construct. I always support human liberty. All that concerns me is about our apathetic attitude and individualism is kindling it

Individualism is a dream promoted by media and celebrity culture. True individualists are often out of time - either hopelessly outoded or with ideas that don't resonate until much later. Most of us realise that we are part of a community and culture soon after our teens, and that we largely acquiesce within it. perhaps the most individual thing people do is to wear different clothes. Whoo - wee. World shattering. The people who claim to be individual often are really not - they just say they are in a slightly different way to how everyone else says it. The truth is that we are social beings, and that our success is the result of our social co-operation over time.

[Phocion]

It could be regarded as the state absolving itself of it's responisibilities to its citizens. Both modes of thought are in the political sphere here in the UK, but if the state relies upon voluntary organisations, then there is no guarantee that help will be forthcoming without prejudice. If the state establishes its responsibility to its citizens, then this is less likely, and it can then sanction, as we currently do, other agencies to help in relief.

I see no essential difference in responsibility between a state's response to the plight of its citizens in other countries, and often expensive intervention is sanctioned, and the plight of the state's own poor. I can see how the two are regarded differently - citizens in difficulties in other countries often involves international scrutiny, and most countries try to maintain a protective and supportive stance, and so protect their international regard. With modern news media, it also becomes apparent when there is a poverty of response/ regard for a country's own people.

As for providing the means to self help rather than direct relief, I think both have to be done - one long term and one short term. To suggest that the multitudes of needs can be salved by providing means rather than direct aid is to misunderstand what happens to poor people, who often lurch into short term crises until they can stabilise themselves. With all the talk of boosting the economy and generating investment and demand, I really can't see why a government wouldn't want to use poor relief as a way of injecting some money into the economy. After all, poor people will spend it in the local economy, and use local business. Huge amounts of money have been pumped into quantitative easing - isn't relief merely an aspect of that?
This is just the obvious ramblings of someone who proposes solutions without knowing their economic limitations, and is apparently blind to the inefficacy of most state intervention.

[cacian]

America does a poor job dealing with poverty. The welfare program gives money away irresponsibly. It doesn't help people at all to give them food stamps and welfare checks. But I don't see how this relates to individualism?

Poverty is a worldwide issue.
The world does not come together and therefore poverty and other isolating tragedies such as this is because of a world that has failed greatly in coming together in sense and welfare. The world lacks understanding of that one goes around comes around.

Everytime a country denies another country right to integrate there is poverty.
Europe is a disaster as a result of it. One does not come together in small batches and block others.
It should be come together to allow all.
It is a volcano waiting to erupt. Let's call it a Vesuvius of a modern time coming.

[Paulclem]

This is just the obvious ramblings of someone who proposes solutions without knowing their economic limitations, and is apparently blind to the inefficacy of most state intervention.

If you want to be a bit more specific with your criticism I can ramble you an answer - that's if I can feel my way to the keyboard.

[Scheherazade]

~

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Personal and/or off-topic posts will be removed further notice.

~

[biblophile]

America likes to think of its self as a nation of individualist, in reality we just want to be free from a sense of civic responsibility. America is a place with no culture unless you consider consumerism a culture. Really the only individualism left is showing your individuality through conformity in brand name selection .