The One-Sidedness of American Individualism

From the very beginning, the celebration of the individual has been at our core.  The Declaration of Independence declares that each of us is equal to the other and each has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The Bill of Rights ensures against unwarranted government action against the interests of the individual.

Our growth as a frontier country depended heavily on the fortitude of individuals.  These were the heroes of America’s expansion to all corners of the country.

In today’s age, we see the sanctity of individualism in fights about property rights, about whether the government can tell property owners what they can or can’t do with their property.  We see it in the statements of gun rights advocates.  We see it in the emergence of the ego-centric “Me” generation during the Reagan years that has cared little for what happens to its fellow Americans, let alone its fellow man.

But this is just an expression of one aspect of individualism … that the protection of individual rights ensures the freedom and independence of us all.  (As an aside, that those rights are not absolute is discussed in a previous post, “The Common Good Always Trumps Individual Rights,” that dealt with the problem of what to do when one person’s individual rights threaten those of another or the common good.)  The other equally important aspect of individualism is that individual thought is vital to the health and vitality of our democracy and our society.

Whatever may have been the case at our country’s founding and during its first century, our modern culture has developed in a way which finds individual thought antagonistic, not vital, to our future.  The disapproving phrase, “boat-rocker,” comes to mind.  Our capitalist system has fostered and depends on a culture of conformity.  What little individual action or thinking that exists concerning the problems of our culture, and some is excellent, has been a voice in the wilderness, drowned out by the mass media and the power of the corporate interests that control our society.

Some may argue that our political system is an example of individual thought.  I would argue that although we certainly have disagreement within the system, and certainly the Republican and Democratic parties’ current perspective on what’s in the best interest of the country differs wildly, we still have precious little individual thought.  What we see instead is conformity to two opposing perspectives, with little individual thought about either or a third way.  The online petitions from Credo and change.org and other organizations, while helpful, are like mosquitoes to the prevailing system;  they do not attempt to address the underlying societal problem or suggest a different political structure.

Others may argue that in industry, at least the dot.com world, individual thought is highly prized.  But this is individual thought in the search for material fortune and individual thought in the furtherance of our dependance and conformity to modern technology.  There has been little, although certainly some very good, individual thought about where all this technology is leading us.  Almost no thought exists on how to stop this degeneration of human life and interaction.

Thomas Jefferson famously stated that there needs to be a revolution periodically to maintain the health of a democracy.  Given the control of our culture and society by a relatively small number of people and corporations and the subservience of virtually all Americans to that culture’s way of life, where will a nonviolent revolution of ideas have a chance to take root and grow?

The Damaging Impact of a Lack of Community on Children and Our Society

When Hilary Clinton wrote her book, It Takes a Village to Raise a Child, there were many, especially on the right, who ridiculed her for making this statement.  Bob Dole in his 1996 presidential nomination acceptance speech said that it doesn’t take a village, it takes a family to raise a child.

But this ancient African proverb is as true today as it was when it originated in the village-based societies of Africa.  Of course it takes a family to raise a child.  The influence of the immediate family, for better or worse, has a dominant impact on a child’s  development, emotionally and otherwise.  

Children, however, do not live in an isolated world bounded by borders of their family home.  From an early age they come into contact with many other influences ... mass media, peers, teachers, strangers.  Unfortunately, in our culture, most of these influencers, even teachers, have very little interest in the healthy development of the child.  Each has their own interest that prevails.  

Media wants to influence the child to do what its bidders want the child to do.  They want to manipulate the child.  

Other children are often quite selfish and can be very cruel.  They deal with their own insecurities by acting out against others who are weaker in any way than they are.  

Teachers ... and of course there are many exceptions ... are so burdened by the number of children they must deal with and the often chaotic condition of the school and classroom that they are overwhelmed.  They go through the motions of teaching, rather than really teach.  

And strangers, except for the occasional good samaritan, have no interest in the child and will act on their own interests and needs.

What I’ve described is the antithesis of growing up in a village, at least the communal villages of primitive societies.  Even before the industrial revolution, the village in western cultures, while a self-contained society, was not communal in nature.  The impact of individualism, while so much more pronounced now, was present even in those nostalgic days.  And so the child came into contact with many people who had little or no concern for its wellbeing and development.  And its insecurities were deepened.

In the communal villages of primitive societies, the attitude towards children was very different.  Every child was in many ways everyone’s child, not just the parents’.  Everyone in the village had a concern for a child’s wellbeing and development.  That was the culture.  The strength of people lay in the combined strength of the village, not in their individual attainments.  You of course had individuals who excelled in various areas, but their work was dedicated to the good of the whole, not themselves as individuals.  A child brought up in this atmosphere felt secure and wanted, a part of a larger whole.

It is this absence of community in our society that has resulted in the prevalence of gangs and other antisocial organizations, and more recently of growing ultra-religious groups, that provide the feeling of community that everyone yearns for but at the cost of the larger society’s cohesion.  It is the absence of community that results in a heightened insecurity and an attitude that the only thing that’s important is me, and perhaps my immediate family.  We live in a dog eat dog culture because of the absence of a feeling of shared community and responsibility for each other.

I don’t know how we revive a sense of community in our country.  We are farther from that ideal now then ever, I fear.  And there appears to be precious little interest in turning back from the polarized state we are in.  It does not bode well for the future of our country.