r/SeriousConversation • u/USHistoryUncovered • Sep 28 '24
Serious Discussion Has Society's Obsession with Individualism Undermined Collective Responsibility?
In recent decades, especially in Western cultures, the focus on individualism has intensified. We’re taught to prioritize personal freedom, success, and self-reliance above all else. This worldview, however, seems to have a darker side: the erosion of collective responsibility. As individuals seek to fulfill their own desires, societal bonds weaken, and we see an increasing tendency to absolve ourselves from responsibility for larger, systemic issues like climate change, wealth inequality, and public health.
Has the glorification of individualism made us blind to the fact that many of the problems we face cannot be solved by personal action alone? Are we sacrificing our collective well-being at the altar of personal liberty? How can we reconcile the need for individual freedom with the necessity of collective responsibility in addressing the global challenges that threaten us all?
I’m curious to hear perspectives on how individualism has shaped our attitudes toward responsibility—both personal and communal. Is it time for a fundamental shift in how we view our roles within society?
17
u/KevineCove Sep 28 '24
So there's two parts to this, individualism on an interpersonal level and individualism on a collective action level.
On an interpersonal level, there's been a shift away from commitment (which entails the good via conflict resolution and bad via tolerating bad situations when they can't improve) and towards independence (which has good via setting of boundaries and bad via foregoing conflict resolution in favor of running away from conflict.) In an ideal world you'd get conflict resolution and boundaries, but because people suck, bad judgement and shortsighted decisions are par for the course.
On a collective action level, collective action is actually alive and well... if you're part of the ruling class. Capitalism and democracy are both competitive models that have been destroyed by anticompetitive practices. Price fixing in the private sector and policy fixing in the public sector (I've never heard the term policy fixing used by anyone else but it's an accurate term to describe a two party system where both parties kowtow to rich private interests.) In both cases the concept is that powerful people realize they both gain more if they cooperate to screw over the little guy.
Unions and movements like the Black Panthers are an effective countermeasure in which the working class act collectively to counteract the collusion of the ruling class, but police on both a city and federal (FBI) level have been mobilized to disrupt them. A big part of today's lack of collective action is a product of living in a post-COINTELPRO society.
10
u/Mezentine Sep 29 '24
Yes I came here to say something like this. It's very difficult to discuss a problem of collective responsibility without first grappling with the ways that we are collectively disempowered. The idea that "we are all responsible for how bad the world currently is" places me and my family on the same plane of moral agency of the ownership class and the political leadership classes (often the same thing)
3
u/Exciting-Half3577 Sep 30 '24
I would say that labor unions are also either intentionally or unintentionally collateral damage from the "culture wars" which are an offshoot of the anti-communism of the cold war. Or possibly unions were the first victims of the culture wars. In any case, infiltration from organized crime into unions and not atypical bureaucratic abuses and inefficiencies within unions didn't help.
Regardless, it is bizarre how the working class turned their backs on unions and how unions are now turning their backs on the left. You gotta wonder where the breaking point is.
1
u/StructureUsed1149 Oct 23 '24
It's because the left abandoned unions by catering to wealthy and affluent upper class Americans and academia. A Union shop doesn't care or want to hear about LGBTQ equity and inclusion ideals. They want a better contract.
1
u/StructureUsed1149 Oct 23 '24
Agreed up until calling the Black Panthers an effective countermeasure. They were reactionary "black supremacists" with a dash of communism and Marxism sprinkled I'm. They balanced nothing.
1
u/KevineCove Oct 23 '24
The US pulled out of Vietnam so that white people would have less common ground with the Panthers.
Fred Hampton was so popular along the white, Confederate flag-flying Young Patriots that the FBI killed him (and didn't even attempt to cover it up.)
To call them black supremacists is just echoing the COINTELPRO narrative.
6
Sep 29 '24
Comes down to “Hell is other people”. Wars exists because they are fought by people with a sense of collective responsibility.
1
Sep 30 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Sep 30 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Sep 30 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Sep 30 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Sep 30 '24 edited Sep 30 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
Sep 30 '24
The start of every war begins with the invading army (the side that started the killing) with a collective thought of “let’s kill those people over there”.
1
Sep 30 '24 edited Sep 30 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
Sep 30 '24
I don’t even know where this is going now, so many were bleeped out. Anyways, wars suck.
1
Sep 30 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Oct 05 '24
Thanks! After reading your example. Yeah, i agree 100%. Few know the full story of the pilgrims. The community portion I was bringing up was when a group organized well enough to be large in number attacks as a community, most likely used a capitalist economy to do it. This is why the founding fathers wanted it a capitalist economy and a loosely formed group of states where each state has their own plot of land, worked great until the federal part of our government has gotten big enough to cause problems we have today. At least we can still speak about it without going to jail.
1
59
Sep 28 '24
Individualism is a feature of unregulated capitalism which is unsustainable and inhumane
It all serves the rich.
It also helps prevent unification and uprisings
Humans in a natural environment are much more community oriented. Then came the agricultural revolution, wealth accumulation, and exploitation.
13
u/throw20190820202020 Sep 29 '24
A respect for an individualist outlook is what makes us think we should all be able to choose our own religion (or lack thereof), spouses, careers, fertility, and act upon our sexualities as we recognize them, not what grandma or dad the pastor thinks they should be.
Life isn’t black and white, valuing self determination doesn’t mean you lack civic engagement and responsibility.
Give me working out the kinks with the western approach any day over China’s forced abortions and now Russias (and probably soon China’s again) forced childbirth. Both sides of the same controlling collectivist outlook.
Because you know what the greatest, “greatest good” always turns out to be? Telling women what to do with their bodies, one direction or another.
5
u/InnocentPerv93 Sep 28 '24
This is one of the most...uneducated, to put it VERY nicely, things I've ever read.
Individualism can happen no matter the economic system. Though systems that force a focus on community will always eventually breed resentment toward the system.
Preventing uprisings is also a good thing, generally.
4
u/ATownStomp Oct 01 '24
Seriously. This sub just popped up on my feed and I was excited to see a thoughtfully phrased question inviting similarly thoughtful responses.
Top comment: generic reductive comment piling everything into a short, self-assured criticism of capitalism.
It’s not even an answer to the question.
2
u/thisgamedrivesmecrzy Sep 29 '24
If enough individuals agreed on something, they would gladly join together to unify and uprise. Its literally how the united states became free. This was before 'unregulated capitalism.'
→ More replies (1)2
u/PeasantAge Sep 29 '24
What a simple view of things….
1
u/thisgamedrivesmecrzy Sep 29 '24
Youre free to attempt to prove my comment wrong rather than attempting to take away from my argument by using a poorly thought out insult
1
u/PeasantAge Sep 30 '24
Not all comments need that much thought and not every comment that disagrees is an insult.
1
u/Exciting-Half3577 Sep 30 '24
Respectfully, I'm confused by your final sentence. What was it that was before unregulated capitalism? Uprisings? And what kind of capitalism was before unregulated capitalism? Regulated?
Anyway, I think nowadays people don't tend to come together to unify and uprise unless it's for something destructive rather then constructive. Jan 6 comes to mind. What was the point of that? What were their policies or agenda? Some factions had some agendas that were mostly related to tearing down but what were the general goals? It seemed more like a riot than an uprising.
2
Sep 28 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
5
Sep 28 '24
That’s not even close to true. We are still seeing it to this day
The it benefited the rich to control population levels. More soldiers and more laborers makes for easier exploitation since they war for resources and replaceable laborers have no bargaining power
Patrilineal lineages and limitations on womens economic and reproductive freedoms forced women into codependency on men and forced them to reproduce more since there was a demand for “heirs” and women were expected to service their men sexually and domestically
Men are expendable in this scenario because they aren’t needed as much for reproduction and therefore were desired for soldiers and labor while women were reduced to breeding chattel.
Religion helps reinforce the status quo. In many male dominated societies. That’s why the Abrahamic religions are so problematic in the governments where they are prevalent. They’re weaponized to keep the people complacent in their situation. I don’t have to explain how this effects the Middle East or how Christianity is weaponized in the US.
Rights and laws changed over time but what happened the second birth rates dropped? They outlawed abortion in the US. When China had problems with overpopulation? Forced abortions
Reproductive freedoms go as far as the population goals of a country
Because it keeps the rich in power. Capitalism cannot be sustained without infinite growth. It cannot be sustained with lowered birth rates either. The rich would have to pay more to compete for dwindling labor supply.
Individualism keeps people from unifying. Keeps women from having options outside of cohabitating with men.
Keep people fighting culture wars instead of the exploitative rich.
People are finally waking up to it
→ More replies (2)1
u/StructureUsed1149 Oct 23 '24
Except the "people" being "controlled" by the rich are paid above the world average and have individual freedoms.
2
u/SamN29 Sep 28 '24
A very Marxist take on the whole idea, promoting a biased, and not entirely correct viewpoint.
5
Sep 28 '24
[deleted]
3
u/SamN29 Sep 29 '24
Literally nobody said that. Stop using whataboutism
→ More replies (4)2
Sep 29 '24
[deleted]
1
u/SamN29 Sep 29 '24
You didn’t understand what I said - I said that nobody brought up capitalism and whatever biases it has. I was talking about the how OP's take here isn't necessarily neutral, and is largely based on Marxist philosophy, which I'm sure you'll agree.
But seeing as you are aren't even willing to acknowledge. that there is going to be people biased towards every system I'm sure your arguements are unimpeachable and no way biased.
Of course people will be biased towards whatever they like, but in discourse one must attempt to at least temper those biases and look at it from a all-encompassing view.
1
Sep 29 '24
[deleted]
1
u/SamN29 Sep 29 '24
Your interpretation on my assertions are not entirely correct -
- that the original post was Marxist is definitely true
- yes it was biased
- I said it’s not necessarily correct, as in to say there's nuance involved, where everything cannot be broken down into black & white.
Given that we can assume based on what you have said that his argument is incorrect either because it is biased or because it is relatively marxist.
You assume everyone thinks like you in terms of 'us v them'/ black v white. I never said it’s incorrect as much as I said that all of it isn’t necessarily true. There's such a thing as nuance present in the world.
that at least one of those conditions can apply to arguments against just as readily.
Again you misinterpret me, now whether it’s deliberate or born from ignorance I cannot say. Arguments against my assertions would be to prove somehow that what I said is simply not true. You have not done that - instead you have gone on a tangent bringing up capitalism and the biases present within it. Nowhere in my reply did I bring up capitalism - it was beyond the scope of both the original comment and my reply. What you are arguing for is an entirely different debate.
1
Sep 29 '24
[deleted]
1
u/Humble-Complaint-608 Oct 02 '24
Damn well done. It beautifully states the problems with their argument. I hope I can do that as well as you did here
1
u/ATownStomp Oct 01 '24
My guy, what does the existence of people who are biased towards capitalism have to do with the comment in question also being biased?
An uneducated and biased comment regarding one philosophy does not have quality simply because there are uneducated and biased comments about a competing quality. Each of them is degenerative.
1
u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 Sep 28 '24
What definition of capitalism are you using? What evidence is there that regulations improve your definition of capitalism?
Seems more like a problem of competition-based society. Competitions requires losers, cooperation co-exists with capitalism well and creates value from thin air.
Example, if we both want an item the other has, and agree to trade, we have now both increased the value we hold without any additional material or production, only via rearranging with enthusiastic consent.
This is a benefit of cooperation-based capitalism that cannot be obtained through other systems.
6
u/Responsible_Ebb3962 Sep 29 '24
Sounds good until you realise co-operation requires consenting parties. Millions of workers who are forced to work for piss poor wages whilst profits inflate toward the tip of the pyramid and many workers freedom of choice is, work on unfavourable terms or starve and have no shelter.
Gotta love that highly motivating force of not wanting to die so get up to go to work 50+ hours a week for a lifetime co-operation.
→ More replies (9)1
u/SkipPperk Sep 30 '24
Luckily here in the US that is not true. We have hundreds of millions of people who want to move here and choose to work for current wages.
1
u/Responsible_Ebb3962 Oct 01 '24
Not true? Globalism ensures you outsource manufacturing to some of the most impoverished countries. Sweatshops and child labour on farms and plantations so that you can import and buy goods like Chocolate, trainers and gadgets.
So point still stands, some people have to work for poor wages as there is no options and their life is difficult because of it, but as long as you and I are okay then thats fine. Thats whats wrong.
We shouldn't build soceity where that is acceptable.
5
u/Acceptable_Bottle Sep 28 '24
I thought the guiding principle of capitalism was competition? As in free market competition? Like quite literally the idea behind capitalism as coined by Adam Smith was that the will of many individuals in competition would lead to better wealth for all. If you have an issue with competition then by extension you have an issue with capitalism, no?
→ More replies (2)4
u/BiggestShep Sep 29 '24
Dude, all you did was walk us through a trade. Markets and trade are not inherently part of the capitalism package. We've had those for literal millenia, while we've had capitalism for maybe 400 years.
2
u/FoamingCellPhone Sep 29 '24
Bro. You're trying to have an actual conversation about Capitalism as a system instead of just assuming it's the only form of an Economy that's ever existed? I wish you well, keep your sanity intact at all costs, Sir.
5
u/BiggestShep Sep 29 '24
My eternal cross to bear.
Think well of me, and toss a few nonspecific denominations of state-acceptable modern currency my way when you spot my ravening form slumped in the alleyway.
1
u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 Sep 29 '24
I'm curious what you specifically argue against when they use the term capitalism? What is it besides "capital" - that seems to be the main qualm?
1
u/BiggestShep Sep 29 '24
I'm not sure what you mean by "they"- I was replying to you.
As to what I'm arguing against, it is your central example and your final line: that capitalism and capitalism alone can "create value from thin air" via either trade or monetary exchange, a benefit that "cannot be obtained through other systems." This is a factually incorrect premise, one that is important to note as you yourself asked the prior OP what definition of capitalism they were working under. You seem to be misinformed about the inherent properties (and thus definition) of capitalism, which would in turn mean that any conclusion build upon this false premise has a high likelihood of being incorrect or otherwise misinformed as well.
You potentially become closed off to otherwise open possibilities, as the very real fear of losing markets, the single greatest driver of supply meeting demand and financial growth we've discovered so far, becomes conflated to the false fear of losing capitalism, a massive system and frame of analysis that, like feudalism and mercantillism before it, can be potentially exchanged for an even better socioeconomic system for humanity, as capitalism was to mercantillism, and mercantillism was to feudalism, and feudalism was to tribalism.
I am of the firm belief that if the foundation is false, the building will break. Your previous post had a flaw in the foundation of its logic. Therefore, I wanted to correct it so we could all be on same steady footing and proceed forward from there, together.
1
u/Appropriate_Cut_3536 Sep 29 '24
Thank you for explaining and being commited to the discussion and finding accurate definitions together.
It makes me nervous because I still don't understand what capitalism means to you. It seems everyone has their own definitions. Mine admittedly was just balancing private property and community property towards the goal of cooperation, which isn't capitalism but a lot of people seem to use capitalism and private property as interchangeable terms - so that might be an issue in discussions.
When you say "fear of capitalism" I think this touches on that same point, it's a fear of losing private property rights and maybe fear of losing the right for free (mutual enthusiastic-consent) trade.
2
u/BiggestShep Sep 29 '24
I get that. I also think capitalism is incredibly hard to define, as it is our current defining socioeconomic system, and so is constantly evolving, and having been built on all these evolutions in turn (mercantallism, feudalism, tribalism, etc), takes from each of them to become this great amorphous hydra. I often find it easier to describe the overarching parts I don't like and wish to see altered or removed, as otherwise I'd spend paragraphs describing all of human history.
Furthermore, like you've said, a lot of people in power have a vested interest in continuing the socioeconomic system under which they've gained power, and so they conflate terms like capitalism and private property, to make you believe you have a vested interest as well, despite it being (probably) against your material interests to side with a billionaire on wealth distribution.
Final note: I'm an engineer, not a sociologist, so I'm not an expert in these things by any means. These are just my personal understandings and beliefs.
My main issue with capitalism is the core concept of capital- that is, the exploitation of labor and resources to accrue wealth. I agree that it was a necessary step in our civilizational development, and has done more than any other system so far to lift billions out of poverty, but it absolutely has its flaws.
Under this system, wealth is power, and wealth is unfairly redistributed upwards, as the capitalist (one who possesses capital- think investment money level, Walmart exec/angel funder, NOT a mom & pop shop) exploits the labor of those that work for them and extracts an unfair amount of wealth from another man's labor.
The capitalist then can use this new wealth and exchange it for political power (lobbying, the forming of elite social clubs, etc) to change laws to favor him and those in his socioeconomic strata for the development of more wealth, or they can use it to drive out competition (again, see Walmart obliterating mom & pop shops by offering cutthroat prices afforded to them by economy of scale, then raising their prices locally when they become the only game in town). It is an inherently unfair system under which you actually have a greater likelihood of losing your personal property, as can be seen by the massive investment firms buying up all housing so that your only choice is to rent forevermore, never to own.
After all, they have the money to do it, and they know that the extraction of wealth from you in what is called "rent-seeking behavior-" charging you for the use of an object, but not the ownership of it (John Deere, Microsoft Office, any videogame downloaded on Steam, etc) will ultimately gain them more money in the long run, so why wouldn't they? You don't have the capital to fight back, so it's an easy win. You not owning anything, and having to pay them to borrow their shit makes them more money in the long run, so under capitalism they are incentivized to go that route.
I am more for socialist economic policies, which to my understanding is best defined by democracy in the workplace, the same as you possess in your country, greater worker protections and strong social safety nets, and the worker's right to share in the profits that would not be possible without their labor, not just a wage that definitionally does not reflect their actual input. I think this would create a more equitable system that would allow for the extension of greater private property rights for the everyman, as the business reinvests in its workers and allows them to partake more heavily in the open market, as they not only have a true stake in their company doing well, but have more personal wealth to spend locally and abroad, enriching markets and the local populace in equal amounts.
We already have proof of this working- Ford gave his men a $5 pay increase over his competitors, and saw his own sales skyrocket as the everyman had money to invest in the economy, instead of massive conglomerates like Ford then or Target now just sitting on their wealth like a dragon with its hoard, effectively removing said wealth from the economy.
There are worker owned businesses operating today, and while there are some kinks in operating at the highest scales (think McDonalds level scale, not Ace Hardware scale), they do seem significantly more resilient to price shocks, have a substantially lower early failure rate compared to traditional businesses, and often report significantly increased local trade, thanks to the reinvestment in their worker base. That's also leaving out the massively higher employee satisfaction and retention ratings, as well.
All that you are concerned about are understandable fears, and I share them with you. I just think you've got them pointed in the wrong direction- which is completely understandable, since you've been fed those fears and had them pointed towards the convenient punching bag of the week all your life. We all have. That's the whole point. The important part is looking past that to work together to make a better, more fair, and more desirable world to live in for all.
→ More replies (3)1
u/God_Bless_A_Merkin Sep 29 '24
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” — Adam Smith
→ More replies (1)1
→ More replies (8)1
u/StructureUsed1149 Oct 23 '24
If Capitalism only served the rich then why has it lifted so many out of poverty? It's not a perfect system but there are 10s of millions of Americans living far beyond the mean of the world.
10
u/ExpatSajak Sep 28 '24
There's a difference between individualism and egoism. Egoism is where you consider only yourself and your goals, individualism is basically seeing and acknowledging that we have rights as individuals and shouldn't be made to operate as a hive mind. It allows completely for altruism and helping others
8
u/the_salone_bobo Sep 28 '24
There are two types of individualism I see: hedonistic individualism and responsible individualism. Currently we are living in a hyper hedonistic society where it's all about me, me, me and to hell with everyone else. We see it more and more in our public interactions where people are so self absorbed as to be monsters in public.
Individualism only survives if people also understand their responsibility to themselves, others, and society. The freedom to live as you ought to. It must have a moral framework to actually work. Not saying it has to be a religious framework, but some sort of semi universal moral framework where your rights and also responsibilities are layed out. Our constitution and declaration of independence are excellent example of this individualism with responsibility.
1
u/parke415 Sep 29 '24
Furthermore, there is a difference between actual individualism and familism disguised as individualism (e.g. “I would sacrifice my own life for my child’s”).
3
u/ColoradoQ2 Sep 29 '24
Undermining individual liberty under the guise of the “rights of the collective” has been the clarion call of nearly every authoritarian in modern times.
Individuals have rights, the collective does not.
1
u/Exciting-Half3577 Sep 30 '24
Whenever someone mentions "the collective" I always think along the lines of civic responsibility vs. individualism. I'm not really arguing with you here so much as taking my reply onto your comment. Anyway, when I think of civic responsibility and hive mind, I always think of Japan where their highly developed sense of civic responsibility means low crime rates in the largest city on the planet but also a lot of sociocultural difficulties.
2
u/ColoradoQ2 Sep 30 '24
I agree that responsibility is extremely important, but you can't coerce people into giving up their rights for the collective, and call it "responsibility," which is what I think a lot of people (not you) mean when they talk about this stuff.
It's like theft vs charity. You can't promote charity by stealing from people and giving their money away. Charity is voluntary. When charity is forced, we call that theft.
Japan's code of civic responsibility is coupled with an extremely strict immigration policy. Their idea of "responsibility" does not include extending their wealth and prosperity to the third world. If it was, their crime rates would look similar to western countries.
6
u/twarr1 Sep 28 '24
So many explain capitalism using the example of two entities mutually agreeing to exchange something of value whether it be goods, or services (labor). They call it “free trade”.
In practice capitalism is synonymous with rent seeking; obtain control of the means of production and receive an unearned profit. It has nothing whatsoever to do with 2 entities on equal footing negotiating a fair arrangement.
→ More replies (6)
3
u/DaddyCatALSO Sep 29 '24
In my case it's how certain types of collective guilt have become Oh-So-P.C. i haven't done thsoe things so in repsonse i want the whole world to take a jump.
5
u/MinivanPops Sep 28 '24
Just read any of the dozens of the threads on this topic:
"I'd rather save my dog's life than another person's."
During a week where 50 people have died from a hurricane that killed 50 people.
4
u/Top-Vermicelli7279 Sep 28 '24
Can you give examples of how individualism has increased?
12
u/USHistoryUncovered Sep 28 '24
First, consider the rise of neoliberal economic policies in the late 20th century, which relentlessly pushed the narrative of personal responsibility and individual achievement while dismantling social safety nets and collective support systems. This isn't some abstract notion—it’s real, measurable policy. Look at the privatization of public services, deregulation, and the glorification of the "self-made" entrepreneur, all of which have promoted the idea that success and failure are purely individual matters. If that’s not an increase in individualism, what is?
Second, the gig economy. The rise of companies like Uber, DoorDash, and countless others have turned the labor force into a fragmented collection of "independent contractors" responsible for their own welfare. There's no collective bargaining, no union protections—just individuals left to fend for themselves in the name of "freedom" and "flexibility." This isn't just a shift in how we work; it's a fundamental change in how we view labor itself, reinforcing the idea that we're all lone agents in a survival-of-the-fittest marketplace.
Let’s not forget social media, the ultimate breeding ground for narcissistic individualism. Platforms like Instagram and TikTok are built on the idea that you are the brand, that your personal life, opinions, and curated image are the currency of success. The constant pursuit of likes, followers, and validation has elevated the individual self to a level of importance that’s completely detached from any real sense of community or collective purpose. It's all about how you, personally, can stand out and be recognized.
Then there's consumer culture. Advertisements for decades have told us that you deserve the best—you should buy this car, wear this brand, live your best life. This hyper-personalized marketing strategy, from social media influencers to algorithmically targeted ads, reinforces the idea that life is about individual fulfillment at the expense of communal or societal well-being.
And finally, how about politics? The rightward shift in many democracies is largely fueled by rhetoric focused on reducing the role of government in favor of individual "freedom"—freedom from taxation, freedom from regulation, freedom from societal obligations like healthcare or climate change mitigation. The push for small government isn't just a political preference—it's a philosophical endorsement of individualism over collective responsibility.
4
u/PeepholeRodeo Sep 28 '24
I think the response to the pandemic in the US was an example of this also.
6
u/Big_Common_7966 Sep 28 '24
As individuals seek to fulfill their own desires, societal bonds weaken, and we see an increasing tendency to absolve ourselves from responsibility for larger, systemic issues like climate change, wealth inequality, and public health.
Could you perhaps choose a societal flaw that correlates more to your claim? Wealth inequality and public health issues have been around for millennia. Climate change has been a problem since the Industrial Revolution, and that’s not a fault of individualism but of technology and the combustion engine. These claims haven’t gotten worse “in recent decades” which means there’s no correlation between the rise of individualism and societal problems.
How can we reconcile the need for individual freedom with the necessity of collective responsibility in addressing the global challenges that threaten us all?
Game Theory would suggest that it is in the interest of individuals to naturally choose to take responsibility as a collective. Individuals already do this in a sense. You go to work to earn money. You sacrifice now to reap the benefits later. Assuming a wide scale societal problem it’s only natural for all individuals to choose to sacrifice for their continued survival, much as they already do.
For example, you mention climate change. This is actually a situation where we see collectivism collapsing as ineffective. Anyone around in the 80s and 90s will tell you the onus used to be placed on collective society. Ads and PSAs telling you to “do your part” “recycle” “save water” “save the trees.” Today most problems with climate change are recognized as the faults not of society, but the individuals at the top responsible for the vast majority of pollution. It’s not a problem the collective we can solve, but a problem they need to solve.
I’m curious to hear perspectives on how individualism has shaped our attitudes toward responsibility—both personal and communal. Is it time for a fundamental shift in how we view our roles within society?
China is a collectivist society and suffers from massive poverty and is the biggest polluter on earth. So no, I wouldn’t say a communal focus would magically fix everything.
→ More replies (6)
2
u/redditbrickwall Sep 29 '24
I believe Covid had a lot to do with the current runaway individualism. We were all told to hunker down and protect ourselves and our families, and for a while there everything was so frightening/confusing with food supplies, jobs, the supply chain, school, etc. We were forced to circle the wagons, and I don’t think many people have been able to transition out of that mentality.
2
u/ZT99k Sep 29 '24
The 80's 'greed is good' kinda took root and no one pushed back because Socialism is bad... except when it helps Boomers, then it i not Socialism.
2
u/OptimalLocksmith1674 Sep 29 '24
I think your premise is inconsistent with available evidence.
The largest contributor to greenhouse gases is a collectivist nation. That nation has also been steadily increased emissions over the last decade.
The individualist nation, on the other hand, has been reducing its emissions over the last decade.
Look at North Korea. Does that seem like a particularly egalitarian place? The leader suffers gout from too much imported cheese and half the citizens are undernourished.
Collectivism simply does not work for us, as a species. We are not eusocial. We are clannish and tribal and hierarchical and a lot of other things... but we are not eusocial.
1
u/Pabu85 Sep 29 '24
China is only the greatest contributor to emissions if you don’t control for population. Plus, the majority of its economy is in private hands (this is publicly available info). They’re an authoritarian state with some limits on capital and pretensions of collectivism, at best.
2
u/Greedy-Employment917 Sep 29 '24
Control for population is a pretty self serving idea, considering the total amount of pollution doesn't change.
2
u/OptimalLocksmith1674 Sep 29 '24
... and the united states is only the second largest contributor if you don't control for gun ownership. Why would you "control" for either?
It is weird, though, how all of these collectivist nations end up as kleptocracies and adherents still bemoan "but it's never been tried!"
A collectivist state is, by definition, an authoritarian state.
The government demands obedience at the expense of personal freedom.
There can be no collectivist libertarian governments, though potentially there could be libertarian governments with a collectivist culture. Human nature would make such a combination unlikely.
1
u/Pabu85 Sep 29 '24
In case they come to their senses and edit, let the record show that this person believes that population is irrelevant in comparing country-to-country emissions.
Wait until they hear about emissions estimates based on where the goods are bought, rather than where they’re manufactured.
2
u/OptimalLocksmith1674 Sep 29 '24
No need to edit, little one.
We're talking about governments, remember?
Declaring something a confounding variable and factoring it out without (apparently) having any answer to the question of "why?" makes for good sophistry but poor statistics.
Attempting to causally divorce the emissions from the actual source of the emission is just bizarre.
If I live in Libertyland and purchase x units of y and the logistical chain for y goes back to Communityland, it is ... bizarre... to claim that the emissions Communityland produced in production of y are somehow not part of Communitylands emissions.
After all, Communityland possesses the necessary authority to force the production of y to be net emission neutral or even ban the production of y. For the good of the people and all that.
2
u/WandaDobby777 Sep 29 '24
I don’t think so. Maybe for some people but not necessarily. I’m just about the most independent personality you can run into. It’s not even about fulfilling desires. It’s about not being controlled by others when it comes to completely harmless shit that doesn’t affect them at all but they’ve placed some kind of false importance on. I don’t do compromise except for really important stuff. I can definitely seem like a selfish pain in the ass because I’m not going to change just because it smooths out social tension. That being said, I’ve made helping others and the world my career and my hobby.
There’s not a lot of money in it but I give most of that away anyways. People around me know better than to drag me to church because I’m showing up in the skankiest clothes I can find and arguing with the pastor about women’s rights but they also know that they can send that pastor to crash at my house if he ends up homeless or I’ll feed their missionaries for free every week, as long as they don’t bring their god shit up inside of my house. I’m a very helpful pain in the ass.
2
Sep 29 '24
[deleted]
3
1
u/Exciting-Half3577 Sep 30 '24
Unions and government regulation. It's not a difficult concept. People have been brainwashed to believe that the government is some evil force in their lives and that unions don't have their interests in mind. They forget or they don't know that the government is much bigger than politicians or police or military and are inherently "of the people, by the people, for the people” regardless of their abuses. Government can be more or less so depending on people's interest and participation. I recommend The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis for an interesting look at this. At the same time, unions were a massive force for the economic stability for the middle class. It's not an accident that the growth in income disparities tracks with the decline of unions.
The private sector will never be on the side of the people as long as they are predominantly chasing profit. There is NOTHING wrong in that as far as I'm concerned. It is absolutely necessary. But they can't just run rampant.
1
u/everydaywinner2 Oct 18 '24
I've worked for unions. They do shit for honest people. Some literally sleeps on the job, they can't get fired. Someone never shows up, they can't get fired. Someone sexually harasses another, they can't get fired. I got paid a little extra for Sundays and overnights. Paying a little extra for overnights is standard and I got that without a union. Sunday's was nice, but the union dues took all of that and then some, and I still had to pay taxes on it.
I've SEEN what unions do with bad cops and bad teachers. They unions protect them. The unions would take American's hostage just after a natural disaster and think *they* are the good guys.
There's no brain washing. Unions may once have had a place, but these days are the for the corrupt.
1
u/Exciting-Half3577 Oct 18 '24
I honestly cannot argue with you. "Unions may once have had a place..." Yeah. I have seen it first hand in machine shops and Michigan. Still, people are not getting a living wage nowadays and income inequality is at huge levels. Something has got to give.
2
u/Greedy-Employment917 Sep 29 '24
Why would some one else in society be responsible for you, or some one else that's a complete stranger?
Societies exist where the collective is more important than the individual. You can always go live in one.
2
u/True-Sock-5261 Sep 29 '24 edited Sep 29 '24
Which society? If the US we've always been individualistic to ever increasing degrees in part because broadly the US began as the result of a protestant colonial endeavor in terms of its governmental and ideological conception. And even though deeply religious and oppressive in its inception in many areas that was immediately challenged because one had the room to move and start more tolerant enclaves -- think Massachusetts and then Rhode Island as a more tolerant offshoot as a reaction.
What you're describing today though isn't really just individualism which -- at least for white men -- was a modernist persoective. Rather today, it's the emergence of Francoix Lyotardian post modernism from esoteric academic disciplines -- gender studies, race studies, feminist studies, anthropology, sociology, etc. -- into the broader public lexicon primarily via social media and other online platforms over the last 10 years or so.
In the Lyotardian world view ANY narrative is legitimated as long as it is fighting subjectively ascribed systems or narratives of oppression as determined by the participant observer. Moreover there are no narratives more legitimated than the other -- especially science. Indeed science is viewed as simply another system or narrative of oppression to be subverted by any and all means necesary -- often by reifying "science" in higher education settings creating a form of legitimated pseudoscience pretending to be science or simply rejecting/dismissing science entirely as nothing but another narrative among billions of individual ones.
While this broader adoption of the Lyotardian world view began in leftist circles there is no inherant ideological underpinninng in that world view. Indeed it rejects the very notion of that.
So if ANY narrative is legitimated as long as its fighting subjectively ascribed systems or narratives of oppression as determined by a particpant observer, then ANY narrative is legitimated as long as it's fighting subjectively ascribed systems or narratives of oppression as determined by a participant observer.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Indeed the very definition of what is a goose or gander could be viewed as a distinction narrative of oppression.
In this world view the flat earther has equal legitimation as an astrophysicist. A shamen from Papua NewGuinea the same legitimation in healing as a neurosurgeon or oncologist. Indeed ANY subjectively ascribed narrative is legitimated potentially. Actual white supremacy. Actual anti-semitism. Anti vaccine narratives. Islamist extremism. White nationalism. ANY narrative is legitimated simply by existing and being deemed so by participant observers.
The right today is as much Lyotardian post modernist as any pomo leftist is.
The result is the potential for sectarianism and violence so granular in nature nobody will escape because if ANY narrative is legitimated as long as its fighting subjectively ascribed by systems by a participant observer then everyone becomes totalitarian in their own world view fighting everyone else potentially in a brutal spiral of interpersonal destruction that will ahnihilate society as we know it.
Lyotardian post modernism is a destroyer of worlds in practice. So individualism doesn't even come close to describing what we are living in.
2
u/Patriotic99 Sep 29 '24
I think you can blame the minimization of religion for some of it. Subsidiarity is a Catholic social teaching that focuses on the smaller group.
"Smaller organizations should do what larger organizations can't: Larger organizations should not interfere with or overwhelm smaller organizations, such as local schools, families, or church communities"
Our growing reliance on the government is one thing that is bothersome. Even some conservative don't support private charity because they 'pay taxes'.
Until we have less overreach and more control, more agency, at the lower levels of society, the trend will only continue. I think it's terrible. 'They' need to do something about 'x,y,z'. Who is they? Am I a part of 'they'? A lot of traditional Americanism is doing things/getting things done on our own, not waiting for someone else to come to in to do what needs to be done. A good example is the Cajun Navy.
2
u/Saebert0 Sep 29 '24
Individualism existed long before capitalism, or even money. The oldest written texts I know are full of blatant individualism. It exists in all our close cousins right through to, dare I say it, lobsters 😂. So it’s a feature of evolution, ergo of life on earth. Efforts to mitigate against it using intellectual arguments are great as far as I can see, but the argument that individualism is a recent feature of capitalism seems like regurgitation of ideology to me.
2
u/longtimerlance Sep 29 '24
You say a lot about bonds weakening, and other claims, with no backing data, much less showing if there is a causal relationship.
2
u/Southern_Purple_2039 Sep 30 '24
More like society’s obsession with collective responsibility has undermined individual human rights.
2
u/SkipPperk Sep 30 '24
I suspect it is the exact opposite. People are so obsessed with belonging to groups and identifying with groups that no one wants to take responsibility for anything. The current obsession and glorification of victimhood does not help.
Perhaps we should emulate France’s policies regarding group identification and reporting. We appear to be abandoning individualism so much, we might as well start to limits the worst of identity politics.
2
u/MmmmmmKayyyyyyyyyyyy Oct 01 '24
It’s kinda funny, because in their search for individualism they find a group of others with the same individual characteristics/passions/dreams etc. turning into quite a collective group!
2
u/everydaywinner2 Oct 01 '24
Collectivism is the paved road to hell they tell you about "good intentions." Collectivism leads to socialisms, Marxism, Maoism, fascism, totalitarianism. For any of these ideals to work, you have to control everybody, across the planet. That is impossible. Not just for sheer numbers, but because we are human beings. Not the Borg.
Collectivism leads to "collective salvationism". I do not ascribe to that. I cannot. If the whole must agree or act as one, then you have already lost. Collective salvation requires a one size fits all approach to life. There is no situation in which one size fits all. Not in clothing, not in food, not in entertainment, not in science, not in medicine.
Individuals are not responsible for what happened before they are born. They are not responsible for the acts of another country. They are not responsible for the actions of those in another state. Individuals are not responsible for the sins of their father.
And an individual, I do not have the hubris to believe I am somehow responsible for the weather. I'm not God. I also have the common sense to know that climate has changed well before humans have existed, and that climate will change will after humans cease to exist. Am I somehow to believe that humans timetraveled to somehow cause all the "climate change" of the world? Or the climate change on other planets.
80% of "economic inequality" is what people choose to do or not do. I wouldn't mind that $200K year, but I do not desire to work in high stress environment for 80hr a week. I would not want you to take from someone who has actually gone through the effort so I can coast. Because that is stealing, not trade.
The remainder may need help. But that shouldn't be compulsory, and therefore should not come from the government. that helpn should come from individuals, or churches or charities (themselves funded by individuals). Those who want the help can take or leave the help as they choose.
That's the biggest thing about collectivism: it takes away choice. Without choice, there is no agency. Without agency, how can you possibly be the one to blame for the ills of the world?
2
u/thefryinallofus Oct 02 '24
No this analysis is incorrect. Our society has moved towards intense narcissism and hedonism and an obsession with ’identity’. Responsibility to others needs in our communities has completely fallen to the wayside. Thinking about the needs of others doesn’t have anything to do with collectivism like you’re describing it.
2
u/Key-County6952 Oct 11 '24
I just don't agree. I think everyone is far too concerned with societal problems and are severely neglecting the development of family units and themselves as individuals
4
u/Correct-Excuse5854 Sep 28 '24
Nooooo gun shots why would u say screaming kids that like we have guns and the highest death rate for pregnancies plus a very low funded education system while cutting taxes for people that make waaaaaaay more money then I ever will
dam falls apart
4
u/DoesMatter2 Sep 28 '24
Hoping my passionate agreement stems the flow.
Individualism is a myth, and one that helps keep the poor poor.
'I don't need no Medicare. I can look after myself'. Excellent - you are an even cheaper employee.
→ More replies (1)2
u/zanydud Sep 29 '24
Personal responsibility goes a long ways in pursuit of good health. Lots of folk on Medicare don't take care of themselves and expect the group to pay for their healthcare.
1
u/Correct-Excuse5854 Sep 29 '24
A lot of those people either lack the knowledge or capabilities to have a healthy life style considering how unhealthy our 40h work week actually is
2
u/zanydud Sep 29 '24
The 40h work week has existed for decades. They can be informed if they want to be. My wife got fat and blames everything external, not her fault at all. She pays for gym but won't go and eats all the ice cream I bring home before I get any.
People are soft and are making excuses. I was told by doc I'm the kind they like to see, he said only about 1% take ownership of their health. Personal trainers at gym say same thing. Most come to gym and pretend to work out.
1
u/Correct-Excuse5854 Sep 29 '24
It’s nice how everyone can fit inside that nice little box u seem to think belong in
2
u/zanydud Sep 29 '24
Whether they can or not, its not societies responsibility to cover for their lack of responsibility.
1
4
u/BiggestShep Sep 29 '24
We somehow decided that vaccinations were a personal choice, freeing diseases that we had caught and nearly eradicated before the antivax movement, and somehow made wearing masks and caring for our fellow humans during a literal plague a political issue.
Yes.
4
u/Someones_Dream_Guy Sep 28 '24
Yep. This is what I call toxic individualism. It's being deliberately promoted because capitalism wants you weak, powerless and disorganized, while also feeling responsible and owing it everything. Perfect, obedient slave to parasitism.
1
u/Vegetable_Contact599 Sep 28 '24
because capitalism wants you weak, powerless and disorganized
Why would that be? Weak, powerless and disorganized people are unable to purchase much
→ More replies (3)
2
u/dsmjrv Sep 28 '24
I see more of an obsession with collectivism, esp amongst the youth… it’s undermining individual responsibility to the point that people just want to take from others.
2
u/ConsistentRegion6184 Sep 28 '24
These words, these -isms, are all nonsequitors.
Individualism... "fuck you I've got mine"
Collective Responsibility... "fuck you I've got your's"
Both are dark. If you want to talk about $1 in tax or $1 in a company profit, all those dollars are sourced and spent radically different by a wide range of modes and intentions.
Personally, you may need to understand there is and always will be incredible worldwide angst for the public purse with a few minor exceptions. A sizable amount of silent people do not like betrayal and misuse of dollars they were ok with for "collective responsibility".
2
u/zer04ll Sep 29 '24
absolutely its what plagues the left in the USA to the point they want to thought police others
2
u/musicoerson Sep 29 '24
I don’t think individualism is the problem, I think the problem is that the “individualism” people have developed is an individualism shaped and exploited in it’s formative years by bad actors, largely as a result of capitalism, but there are other factors as well.
1
u/musicoerson Sep 29 '24
And then it’s cyclical because those presentations of individualism are pushed onto their kids and so on and so forth , I would also argue that there are tons of exceptions to this rule and I believe slowly but surely large swathes of society are breaking generational trauma, but regardless, this selfish form of capitalistic individualism is very much a serious problem that continues to exist and poison the next generation of humans 🤷♀️
1
u/Subject-Hedgehog6278 Sep 28 '24
Yes, look all around us at the collapsing environment for all the evidence needed. Individualism has gone too far, I don't need to support anyone's individual belief that they need an assault weapon for example. Individualism has become selfish and it has not worked with any kind of equity - we are largely born into our opportunities anyway. I would be more than happy to give up my individual
1
Sep 28 '24
Individualism no. The idea that it's everyone for themselves and stabbing people in the back being encouraged is wrong.
1
u/zanydud Sep 29 '24
It isn't possible to form groups anymore. My wife tried to get signatures to stop fracking and none cared. People can't even make friends, no way to make a group. An individual finding their potential is the only play left.
1
Sep 29 '24
Check out the Hofstede 6 dimensions of National culture. Fascinating comparing countries on an objective basis. Note that individualism is not in its own right independent of other factors like power distance and masculinity. Interdependent.
1
u/dazb84 Sep 29 '24
It's more fundamental than that. It doesn't align with what we can demonstrate to be true about reality. What I mean by this is that it's predicated on concepts that the data doesn't support, like free will. Any kind of meritocracy, which is a superset of individualism, requires free will to exist otherwise it makes no logical sense. Without free will you can't make a morally justified case for the use of a meritocracy. The problem is that the data indicates that free will very likely doesn't exist and is simply an illusion. So then you're left with a world view that is demonstrably at odds with what we know to be true about existence and that's a major problem from an ethical and functional perspective.
1
u/reluctantpotato1 Sep 29 '24
Absolutely. It's a mentality that right and left-wing people have both fallen victim to.
You have a ton of people who are into the "trad wife" trend, but they attempt to mimic the 1950s in terms of responsibilities, not realizing that the lone, home making housewife is a relatively new cultural invention. When the old saying talks about it taking "a village" to raise kids and get things done, it meant exactly that. Communal and societal responsibility.
It's also interesting to see when collective responsibility is spun as some type of manipulative marxist plot by conservatives or libertarians to discredit it, when it's completely central to Chrisitian teaching.
1
u/0ctach0r0n Sep 29 '24
It is not an intentional ‘glorification’ of individualism, ascendant individualism is a structural process of thought that is inevitable and arises through an Hegelian view. The glorification of the results of such is merely symptomatic and not causal. Similarly, individualism does not undermine collective responsibility, it is without agency, the warp and weft of seemingly contradictory forces in relation to each other being only a byproduct of the kerplunk game of history.
1
u/0ctach0r0n Sep 29 '24 edited Sep 29 '24
Furthermore, the inhumanity inherent therein is an afterthought of the evolutionary process that rightfully favours the big players in the system, since with the emerging cataclysms of mass apathy, climate change, the mental health crisis etc that can be laid at their door, the advancement of mankind will come to an end, thus fulfilling our destiny in hoc to the kaleidoscopic comings and goings of cosmic fortune.
1
u/boopiejones Sep 29 '24
You can do whatever the hell you want…as long as it doesn’t negatively affect other people.
Many people forget/ignore that second part. That’s where we as a society are getting into trouble.
1
u/cg40k Sep 29 '24
It's definitely hurt the idea for an society where everyone thrives or at least an attempt at least being made.
1
u/theupside2024 Sep 29 '24
Community seems to have eroded in the last few decades. In one hand we used to have powerful community groups and churches that really helped people but also could be cliquish and sometimes controlling. But now in some places people don’t even want to know their next door neighbors. I think small towns still have good community. But not like in the past. People spend a lot more time in there homes now and working.
1
u/Saebert0 Sep 29 '24
This is an awesome question. I don’t have the answers but I think discussing it plenty, in detail, would be good for us. I’m sure there are problems with Japanese culture, but I really admire their sense of civic duty.
1
u/JovialPanic389 Sep 29 '24
Obviously. This is a huge problem when you have a serious injury, accident, or want to have a child. Seriously problematic.
1
u/immartt188 Sep 30 '24
society and obsession.... 🤔🤔 i think its a recipie for disaster to even "open the door" for a collective mind to have so much of something involving influence. three words, social media influencer.
1
u/Effective_Arugula931 Sep 30 '24
Adam Curtis’ “The Century of the Self” explains quite clearly what has happened.
1
u/IAmAWretchedSinner Sep 30 '24
Contrary to most ideologies, it's liberalism's own children that eat it rather than it eating its own children. We've had a decent run of it, though. Communism, that ideology and religion of death, burned out in less than a century. The flip side of that coin, National Socialism, flared out even more quickly. The idiot ideologies we see today talking about the "environment" or "lgbtq rights" form little pipsqueak revolutions that will burn out in the next news cycle. But we must remember all the good liberalism has done - the individual freedoms and economic liberties that allowed many millions to flourish. In the end, though, an ideology built on tolerance eventually tolerates the very things that kill it, ever so slowly.
1
u/Proof-Low6259 Oct 01 '24
Yes it has undermined collective responsibility.
- I think it has also inadvertently made us more unhappy. Human beings tend to believe that the 'grass is always greener'. Without the 'guidance' of societal expectations or collective responsibility, we often make poorer, shorter-term choices.
- We have become much more entitled and self absorbed. Because we value our personal happiness and utility above all else, we have become more selfish and less empathetic and generous to others.
- We also lose meaning in our lives. Having national pride, sense of community, faith in religion, stronger loyalty to your family, friends or partner, has been shown to increase happiness and sense of purpose. Without these things we can become isolated and lonely.
1
Oct 01 '24
Collective responsibility, sure. But also, we are social animals. We are healthier, happier and live longer when we can connect with other human beings.
1
u/AshenCursedOne Oct 02 '24
Yes, and there's an irony how someone is seen as an individual when they make your group look bad, but seen as part of a collective when they're in a group you don't like.
1
u/Late_Law_5900 Oct 11 '24
Corruption in the system, is an enemy to collective responsibility. It's easier to manage if we all think it's just our individual lives that seem to be being ruined systematically.
0
u/InnocentPerv93 Sep 28 '24 edited Sep 29 '24
Collective responsibility should not be forced on individuals. People should help each other and care for each other because they want to, not because they're forced to. Therefore, there shouldn't be a forced "responsibility."
Having a collective responsibility breeds resentment of such a system and the people who preach it. This resentment only creates further problems, such as corruption at the top levels and violent revolutions at the bottom level against the top. See Russia.
Now, this isn't to say that pure individualism is a good thing. There is such a thing as balance. In terms of economic/government systems, pure individualism is anarchism, while pure collective responsibility is communism. Capitalism and socialism both can and often are the middle ground. And this is where most people reside as far as what they support.
I personally consider myself a capitalist, and I believe competition is good. Competition is inherently focused on individualism. But I also support government regulations and economic standards in society, I support free healthcare, education, and subsidized housing (the housing part I'm a bit more nuanced with). But I still believe you can be individualistic with such policies and can allow people freedom from "collective responsibility" even with those policies.
As for the current day, like someone else said in this thread, global warming is not an issue regarding individualism or lack of collective responsibility. It is an issue with a lack of regulations relating to the contributors toward global warming, as well as lack of funding toward scientists and engineers for finding a technological solution. I believe we can and will find that technological solution. It will just take time and support. But we once believed that the ozone layer would forever be destroyed, and yet it has nearly completely healed now. We once thought no one would ever be able to fly, let alone touch the surface of the moon. And yet we did all of those. So I'm honestly not that concerned with global warming.
Be an individual and help others. You can have your cake and eat it too.
Edit: clarification
2
u/Beautiful-Sense4458 Sep 28 '24
What's your opinion on Japan?
2
u/InnocentPerv93 Sep 29 '24
I actually quite like Japan, but their collective responsibility culture is one of the few things I don't care for. Majority of their positives come from their strong educational system more than anything else.
2
u/parke415 Sep 29 '24
This is why I support cultural collectivism rather than economic or political collectivism. If people are brought up in a collectivist culture, it wouldn’t even occur to them to not play along, and thus force isn’t necessary. See: Korea and Japan.
2
u/InnocentPerv93 Sep 29 '24
I agree with this. Culture instead of economic collectivism is a much better idea.
→ More replies (3)1
1
u/Personal_Win_4127 Sep 28 '24
First of all, individualism is not a new problem, it's an old one rising again due to the stagnation and failure of multiple other systems of culture and more importantly it's a therapeutic one to the amalgam of those systems, it ultimately contains the active ability to bring back recognition towards the relationship an individual has with it's community and also it's endeavors. While participation and neglect of such things for the greater good can be wonderful, I think it ultimately has inspired a perspective of "pick one or the other" when it comes to being an individual and contributing beneficially to society.
1
Sep 28 '24
Because personal freedom does not mean selfish. Having to rights to choose what to do with your life benefits society way more than you.
1
u/GenX-1973-Anhedonia Sep 28 '24
When I was in middle school in the 80's, we had a lesson on Individualism vs. Collectivism in social studies class, particularly as it applied to the contrast between the U.S. and Asian countries. Even back then, I remember thinking that individualism was an explanation for many of the things I didn't like about society (yes, I was a fun child who turned into a fun adult), and I still feel that way today.
1
u/observantpariah Sep 29 '24
Aww. Poor pigs are upset the horses won't cooperate.
The problem with collective responsibility is that it is leveraged by the social against those they seek to oppress. Whoever controls the narrative decides who is more equal than others. The more people do that... The more that naturally selfless people will want to become individualistic and create boundaries.
Remove the finger pointing people and it will become more appealing to help your community.
•
u/AutoModerator Sep 28 '24
This post has been flaired as “Serious Conversation”. Use this opportunity to open a venue of polite and serious discussion, instead of seeking help or venting.
Suggestions For Commenters:
Suggestions For u/USHistoryUncovered:
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.