Individualism is a strength, not a weakness

I recently had an interesting conversation with my sister (who resides in the US) about the uniqueness of western civilization. In my view, the most remarkable element of western culture is individualism. The west invented individualism and it is to my mind a monumental human construct upon which tiers of higher human accomplishments have been created. My sister remarked that individualism is a shortcoming as this ‘me first’ attitude prevents the vast majority of Americans from receiving universal health coverage in addition to keeping the fat cats fed. She then said that Canada, as a socialist country, was happier and more prosperous because of its collectivist socialist mindset. That all Canadians received health coverage for free along with a plethora of other welfare benefits was proof enough to her about the merits of collectivism over individualism. In her defense, I suspect that she was referring to hyper individualism but many have suggested that the passage from individualism to the latter is a slippery slope.

This is not a new argument, and I’d heard it being expressed several times in multiple contexts at university. However there are a couple of flaws with this argument which I shall address in this post. The first flaw is the classical fallacy of equating individualism with selfishness. Individualism is about self interest whereas selfishness is about pursuing ones self interest at the expense of others. Selfishness is universal and exists even in less developed tribal societies like those of the Middle East and South Asia. Individualism is a socio/cultural outlook that is concerned with the well being of society by foremost emphasizing the well being of each and every member of that society. The methodology of implementing this axiom has spawned a diverse set of ideologies ranging from Hobbe’s egoism to the hedonistic calculus of the great utilitarian philosophers like Bentham and Mill. Focusing on the general health of society is by no means a sign of collectivism. Even Indian society emphasized societal harmony through the social mechanism of caste. However Caste created a socially (and technologically) stagnant society which could only function by maintaining a static hierarchy that grinds individual aspirations to dust. Indian society is an excellent example of a culture that is collectivist and tribal to the core, yet remains miserable. Thousands of Indians attest to this sorry fact by migrating to the west in droves (legally or otherwise).

The argument that Canada’s socialist setup is a textbook example of collectivism is also deeply flawed. Canada’s universal healthcare is available to all citizens regardless of their ethnic and linguistic heritage whereas collectivism generally has a strong ethnic and/or linguistic basis to its character. Furthermore, any form of universalism, especially moral universalism, can only be fully expressed in an individualistic society. As Kevin MacDonald brilliantly points out, tribal/collectivist cultures (like the Jews for example) practice moral particularism, which is centred around the crucial question: Is it good for the tribe? Since collectivist cultures are characterized by a high degree of cooperation between members, it is in the members’ best interests to elevate the tribe’s interests above their own as the tribe bestows sustenance and identity to its members. In India, the effects of the collectivist institution of caste on morality were succinctly reported by John P Jones:

 “And even as it is a foe to nationality, so is it the mortal enemy of individualism. The caste system is really a glorification of the multitude as against the individual. Individual initiative and assertion, liberty of conscience, the right of man to life and the pursuit of happiness,—all these are foibles of the West which it has been the chief business of caste to crush…In India, it has been the business of men, from time immemorial, not to do what they think to be right, nor to find out, every one for himself, what they consider to be the best and to act according to the dictates of conscience; it has rather been submission to caste dominance.

(John P Jones, India, its life and thought , 1908)

Western culture on the other hand de-emphasizes extended kin relationships and as such individuals are not dependant on any group or tribe for their sustenance or identity. This is why western culture approaches moral issues with a fundamentally different question: Is it good for mankind? There are many examples of Jewish moral particularism in North American society, but that is the subject for a future post. I’d like to conclude this post with a quote from Adam Furgeson:

 If, in reality, courage and a heart devoted to the good of mankind are the constituents of human felicity, the kindness which is done infers a happiness in the person from whom it proceeds, not in him on whom it is bestowed; and the greatest good which men possessed of fortitude and generosity can procure to their fellow creatures is a participation of this happy character. If this be the good of the individual, it is likewise that of mankind; and virtue no longer imposes a task by which we are obliged to bestow upon others that good from which we ourselves refrain; but supposes, in the highest degree, as possessed by ourselves, that state of felicity which we are required to promote in the world.

—Adam Ferguson, An Essay on the History of Civil Society

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Caste, Hinduism, India, White nationalism and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Individualism is a strength, not a weakness

  1. WmarkW says:

    The most remarkable feature of Western Civilization is the way it has institutionalized the testing of ideas against evidence. Although that concept is most strongly associated with science, it is also the foundational idea of capitalism (testing products in a marketplace), democratic government (testing political ideas with voters), and separation of church and state (the test of faith is not authority). The world has improved more in the last 500 years than in the previous thousands because the West built a society around the expansion of those principles, and non-Western societies have succeeded or failed to the extent they duplicated them.

    Western Civ cannot succeed when its members are not permitted to test ideas. Such a situation exists today on issues related to demographic identity politics, in which every underperforming group is considered to understand its problems better than the well-performing majority does, and to draft its own preferred solutions. Blacks need affirmative action, not better self-discipline, because they think they do. Women’s pay lags men’s because of unfair pay practices, not skills disparities and work/life balance preferences. Islamophobia results because Westerners don’t understand the peaceful, cosmopolitan nature of Islam, not because so many Muslims don’t.

    Hitler pointed out that the masses can be more easily made to believe a big lie than a small one. Calling Western Civ, and its principle practitioners the white race, a blight on humanity is the biggest whopper of all.

  2. Individualism is definitley a strength. Conformity can be economically beneficial, such as in China, S Korea, and Japan, however, too much of that, and you get a bunch of unhappy people. The suicide rate for South Korea is the highest among 30 OCED countries, and China and Japan also have high suicide rates. Also, the East Asian self-esteem rate is the lowest in the world.

    I hate to use race as an example, but if you look at the individualistic Western Whites, whom have been innovating and making major scientific breakthroughs, and look at the innovatively stagnant East Asian countries, despite their more rigorous academic efforts, it shows that a individualistic culture encourages progress, while a conformist one stagnates it.

  3. max says:

    I concur to what has been said in this post by the author. I am not a white man but l can say that the progress, luxuries and development that has been brought in the world today is owed to the western mind’s ideas about life and humanity in general. I am from India and I know what caste system is by first hand experience. What is more deplorable is that in India’s so called democracy, the politicians are using the caste system as vote bank politics to fill their pockets. But alas, I see that politicians in other ‘developed’ countries are also all too eager to stoop down to greed and look down upon nationalism as some kind of provincial attitude. When I came to the US I definitely noticed that people here are much more civil and courteous than I would find in India. I found simple gestures like doing small talk, wishing pleasantries, opening the door for the person behind you, the women first chivalry etc. that western world (esp. the English culture) has developed to be quite remarkable when put in prospective to other cultures.

    I am of the view that the Western culture as a whole has been much more courageous than the rest and not afraid to try out new ideas which I see lacking in other cultures including India.

    I also find that other south Asians who have settled in western societies do not fully *want* to integrate with the culture over here. And therefore its but palpable that white people here do feel some kind of disconnect from the immigrants.

    • Rick Santos says:

      Agreed Immigrant South Asians do not fully assimilate/integrate in the West (be it North America/Europe and Australia). Being of Hispanic Ancestary but working in the UK, I noticed Americans of Indian Ancestry Assimilate better than European Indians. I think this is to do with a much more filtered Indian Immigrant stock.

      However what do you feel about 2nd and 3rd Generation Westerners of South Asian Origin. They certainly seem much more assimilated and have a more western Mind Set?

      However that said I noticed a fair few even 2nd Gen South Asians tend to have this “ABCD Mentality” – American Born Confused Desi. Is South Asian Culture so f*cked up even us born South-Asians not fully assimilated?

      That said I think on a scale, Whites would Assimilate best in American, then Latin Americans (lighter/less Indio the more quicker they assimilate) East Asians/South East Asians… Finally followed by South Asians and Muslims.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s