A couple of weeks ago, I was talking to a friend about an epiphany I experienced after reading Bullshit Jobs. I used the term 'individualism' to describe the common belief that every person can change the world, but he disagreed with my usage of the term. Intrigued, I did some research to find out what exactly this word encompassed - a bunch of very cheem philosophical explanations was what I came away with, but it certainly exposed the multiple facets of the ideology which I feel are badly understood by the average Singaporean. Hence, I am sharing my interpretation of the ideology with you for a (hopefully) greater understanding of the kind of society we live in today.
'The moral stance, political philosophy, ideology or social outlook that emphasises the moral worth of the individual' is Wikipedia's definition of individualism, and what stood out to me is the explicit mention of political and social aspects. The two paramount tenets of individualism are self-reliance and independence, including the idea that one should think for oneself. When we consider the burgeon in liberalism as the dominant political ideology, it is no surprise that there has been a significant rise in individualism across the world*. Freedom of the individual is key to liberalism, where even economic and social policies cannot violate this very freedom. Such a premise inculcates in us the belief that we are extremely important - boosting our ego as a side effect - and can all be successful individuals who leave our marks on the world. But what if the change one wants to make is to improve the world?
Herein lies the confusing part: the belief that one can influence the world clearly comes from individualism, but the belief of solving societal problems hardly appears to be a selfish behaviour. To answer this question, let me introduce the concept of communitarianism, which has been agreed by most philosophers to be the opposite end of the spectrum of individualism.
credits: wikipedia
Communitarianism believes that community interactions are vital for the development of an individual's identity and personality, and as such, prioritises the group over self. The key tenet of communitarianism is maintaining cohesiveness among individuals within the group, focusing mainly on the welfare of the group as a whole. Opinions within the group are largely homogenous. Race, religion, extended family, class, etcetra, can all be seen as factors that classify who belongs to the 'in-group' and who is not. Contrary to popular belief, despite the strong emphasis on the 'in-group', communitarians largely disregard the 'out-group'; therefore, inclusiveness between people of various groups is hardly a priority for communitarians.
Extreme laissez-faire policies where social stability is ignored are strongly opposed by communitarianists, who hope for greater power for local communities and a promotion of familial bonds. In a way, the proliferation of centralised bureaucratic institutions (a trend in most developed and developing countries, which is observable in SG too) has shifted power away from local communities to ostensibly allow for more equal and fairer distribution of resources.
Why has this trend occurred? Socio-economic development is a crucial factor, with a strong positive correlation between a country's GDP per capita and the degree of individualism*. With the massive economic development that has occurred globally since the 1960s, countries have largely turned towards more centralised bureaucratic systems, adopting meritocratic values which pits individuals against one another, leading to the gradual decline in community-based values. One of the most obvious case study is China, where rapid economic expansion from the 1980s led to a shift from traditional family-based values towards more individualistic values and ideals.
Now that I have established the fundamental essence of communitarianism, let me return to the conundrum: if one believes that they can change the world for the better by solving some existing problem, is this an individualistic or communitarian mindset? Honestly, I think it leans more towards an individualistic mindset because solving a problem - albeit not being a selfish act - makes one feels more useful: 'hey, I am doing something meaningful in my life! I am not completely useless!' The pleasure that comes from helping others is an appeal to continue extending support to others; regardless of whether one is an individualist or communitarian, one will still gain the satisfaction from assisting others. I am crossing into the psychological boundaries here, but I strongly support the case that doing something 'meaningful' would help one to achieve self-actualisation, becoming more independent and self-reliant, which are the key pillars of individualism. In other words, when one believes they can change the world by solving existing societal issues, they are adopting more of an individualist mindset rather than a communitarian mindset, which places less attention on finding meaning within oneself but instead thinks that individuals derive meaning from close ties within their in-group. In fact, studies have even shown that a more individualist society could possibly be more altruistic^ because individualists do not discriminate as strongly against those from the 'out-group'.
Finally, I am going to introduce the last term - collectivism, an ideology that encompasses most of the social aspects of communitarianism but without any political segments. Fundamentally, collectivism focuses on cohesiveness among individuals and prioritises the group over self. The only obvious difference I could discern between collectivism and communitarianism is that the latter emphasises on the development of individuals from social interactions, otherwise, the social aspects of both ideologies seem largely similar.
And I am done! Hope I have managed to simplify these cheem terms enough for you to understand. Of course, I am by no means an expert in this highly philosophical discussion, so feel free to comment below if you have any insights into the technicalities of the ideologies or other distinctions between them.
*https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170718083800.htm
Comments
Post a Comment