The Big Ideas of 2013

The Cult of Individualism

We are all in it.

God died. The seas of metaphysics were limitless again. A new horizon of possibility opened for all beliefs and ideals. Values were re-evaluated, re-molded, re-constructed – and each new value was made in the image of its creator: the individual self.

We were “freed” to think whatever we want, say whatever we want and believe whatever we want – more or less, that is. What we got: apparent freedom, inalienable “individual” rights and in America, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Later came the prevalent I-don’t-give-a-fuck attitude – with all its cool and edgy indifference. But I-don’t-give-a-fuck really means I-don’t-give-a-fuck-because-it-doesn’t-affect-me – this is the prevalent attitude of non-judgmentalism meets moral relativism. Sociologist Charles Smith found, after interviewing 230 young Americans, that the common response to standard moral questions (about rape, murder, theft) was one of bafflement. Young people lacked anything substantial to say about even extremely generic ethical questions. The default attitude was that moral choices are a matter of individual taste, where one’s morality is just a small piece of a carefully crafted individual self that one fashions at whim. “It’s personal,” many interviewees responded: “It’s up to the individual. Who am I to say? Who am I to judge?”

When beliefs, aesthetic preferences and moral proclivities are all left to personal style, we have the hipster mentality, where nonchalant nihilism is cool. Indeed, the word “moral” itself is a dirty word amongst anyone outside the realm of conservatism. But the cult of individualism transcends politics: we are all in the cult. We’ve all had its invisible lens pulled over our eyes such that we perceive the world through a warped and myopic tunnel vision. Aiming to find and remove this lens is as futile as trying to bite your own teeth – for it is built into us.

The great myth of our time is the heroic pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps tale of His Majesty the Autonomous Self (and how convenient is it that this selfsame trope is the foundational myth capitalism needs most for its continued political survival). But this myth needs no creeds to perpetuate its dominance, for it is woven into the very fiber of our being.

We were all inculcated into the cult of individualism – by our families, who tell us we are special; by the vision of the American Dream; by schools, who demand that we specify fields; by advertising which compels us to carve out who we are by consuming certain commodities; by capitalism which teaches us that to succeed is to win in a competition of yourself against all others; and by the ever-growing new-age and pop psychology œuvre which tells us to create our own realities…

But if everyone were to believe themselves as the center of their own universe in which they create their own world, values and all meaning – civilization would quickly deteriorate into solipsism, narcissism, megalomania and/or collective insanity. So it comes as no surprise that “we” are in decline – for what is really wrong with the united “us”? There is no “we,” no “us,” just me, myself and I. This nation is not a unified whole but a cacophony of atoms, each spinning alone to their own idiosyncratic rhythm – and frequently colliding. The Declaration’s axioms are relinquishing their sacred aura, for the glue that holds us together is… well, it isn’t there.

The marriage of this egoism to rationality – the hubris that comes with our self-awarded status as the sole “rational animal” – this may be the fatal flaw of Western civilization, we just don’t know it yet… or do we?

With discoveries in neuroscience that expose us as primarily social beings, the ecological crisis which demands global cooperation in spite of differences, and amidst the peril of capitalism, which reveals the limits of a “survival of the fittest” social philosophy – the fabric of who-we-thought-we-were is being unravelled. It is like waking up from a long hallucination… disorienting, frightening, yet epiphanic… for what we are facing is nothing other than an identity crisis, one that forces us to create a new account of what it is to be human.

It’s uncomfortable to go against the grain of a totalizing and pervasive culture that reinforces a dog-eat-dog conception of human nature. It’s frightening to reconsider who you are in the midst of realizing that what you were taught all along was a lie – a myth exposed as a myth. But this is just what Buddhists have been saying for thousands of years, that the notion of a “separate self” is an illusion, and a dangerous one against which we must constantly exercise vigilance in order to correct this misperception and not forfeit our potential as beings capable of empathy and conscience.

Our concept of the individual self was born in the context of the 18th Century, at least, and it is reaching the end of its course. What is the new paradigm of human nature that is emerging in response to the world as it is in 2012 and 2013? Should we continue to carry the curse of unchecked individualism, it will be our undoing.

63 comments on the article “The Cult of Individualism”

Displaying 11 - 20 of 63

Page 2 of 7

anananano

you showed how capitalism needs individualism, not equals. Apples don't equal apple pie, if I hold an apple, show me how I have an apple pie. Whats an individual without the desire to rise to the profit top?What of someone who values other ways to individualize themselves other than your slim options? your quickie perspective matched the article well. My narrow comrade, you need to understand individualism beyond capitalisms' limits before attempting to define it. And you are welcome.

RJP

"Atlas Shrugged" and "Harry Potter" are two books which are very popular with adolescents. Having a teenaged obsession with one of these books produces an adult who is emotionally immature, intellectually stunted and unable to relate to the real world. The other book, of course, deals with wizards and witchcraft.

jbinsb

There is nothing in the current governmental set-up to prevent individuals from forming into any kind of group they like, aside from those that break taboos agreed upon by society: child abuse and so on. Myself, I couldn't care less if, say, a Mormon has 17 wives. Doesn't hurt me any. Does it hurt the kids? If not, it's not my business. What you -- and Rand -- overlook when you say "individualist thinking precipitates into good for the whole because everyone is driving themselves to perform their best" is that while fiercely pursuing individual success will indeed generate lots of positives, it has also been shown throughout history to feed expression of the qualities about humans that aren't so pleasant or easy to eliminate: the capacity for greed, avarice, dishonesty, greed (did I say that already), greed, and megolomania, which in turn blind them to the plight of their fellow humans who may not be gifted with the same intellect, drive or even opportunity. And that, of course is the limitation of capitalism. In the end, it becomes dog eat dog.

M Umer Toor

The picture of modern man and society that author has depicted - is it not a genuine depiction of majority of us, mostly in West, but increasingly in urban cities of East too? What's the point of mere empirical research when one is talking about things more metaphysical? In the end, the purpose of the article was to bring about an effect; a mild reminder about where exactly we are going. Frankly, this is a topic - and the ideas discussed here - which is not new, rather I've been reading various authors from various backgrounds expressing more or less same ideas. The unifying principle in all these works is spirituality derived from human consciousness and more rigorously from Revealed Religions and Metaphysics.

knotty

So 230 people is a reliable sample??? The author is also pretty quick to make some huge leaps in her argument that i think don't hold up. She is attempting to take a microcosm of opinion and whitewash the western world with it. Today is a world of DIVERSITY, no single description can define our culture, there is no true majority anymore. If you need to simplify things with singularities, then go back to the 1950's.

Umer Toor

Obviously any country or culture is too diverse internally to be generalized on any narrow set of points. However, there are tendencies which are often dominant, and are more or less shared by either most important people or many. It's really not about numbers. It's about quality. There are medical diseases which are rare, yet we are all conscious about it and try our best to avoid it. Similarly, from spiritual perspective, most grave ailments have to be prevented at all costs. In this sense, diversity or question of how many people are individualistic in negative sense is no more relevant. The singularity of the importance of this disease justifies the emphasis, as such.

knotty not

Actually, on a strict metaphysical plane, grave negative spiritual perspectives literally do not -matter- one iota. Meta physics is the transcendence of physical matter (aka does/is not of matter) and therefore has no relevance on this most physical plane, except when acted on by the fools (religious and idealogical zealots mostly) who allow metaphysical notions to define their physical acts. I would suggest the presence of negativity in our diverse metaphysical plane is essential as a warning beacon for those who prefer/need to beware of the complete potential of the human mind.
If its not about quantity but quality, then quality of what? I see quality in the presence of diversity in anything.
Rare medical diseases??? I can't think of any I actually try to avoid. How are smokers trying to avoid disease? In your world do they have to go? "Yet we are all conscious about it and try to avoid it" Isn't obesity a disease? How are 'we all' trying to avoid it?
Did you equate diversity with "question of how many people are individualistic in (a) negative sense"?
The way your response bounces around creates much vague.

Anonymous

the above comment is evident of the hipster nihilism spoken of in the article. why today are people so intolerant of moral philosophizing? look at our world. don't we need moral thinkers?

Of course it is pedantic....but if Socrates, Jesus or Buddha or spoke today, would you ignore their wisdom and ostracize them as moralizers.

also "individualism" is a key tenet of all Enlightenment philosophy, it is the backbone ideology to modernity, and to America's self-concept (see founding documents)

Anonymous

I feel the viewpoint in the article is very refeshing.Why in our current (secular) culture should you be called out when your language is imbued with conviction, beliefs, and values that run contrary to America's obsession with self as the backbone for action?

Pages

Add a new comment

To comment or reply please Log In, Create An Account or post as Anonymous.