The problem with the libertarian's emphasis on individualism

This post is inspired by this video, although I would have eventually written about it:

As an anthropology major thinking of minoring in psychology (and having an interest in all things human), I can't help but notice that humans are social creatures. Of course pretty much everyone reading this knows that already, but I don't think to the extent they should.

Watch this video:

And that video, for some reason, reminds me of the first episode of "The Twilight Zone."

From that (and I mean the video, not my associating it with "The Twilight Zone"), we gather that humans are highly social immediately from birth and that social connection impacts every aspect of how we live our lives.

Humans in the past were a part of tribes containing 150 to 300 people. Thanks to technology, population increase, and high population densities, we have doubled, tripled, or even more than quadrupled the number of people we associate with. I don't believe that it is necessarily a bad thing, it is especially a good thing to know when it comes to networking (which I will discuss on a later date).

I have been called a "collectivist" by some libertarians, as if it was a derogatory word. I will admit: I am a collectivist.

Advertisement

Self and Society: Narcissism, Collectivism, and the Development of Morals The relation between individual and collective processes is central to the social sciences, yet difficult to conceptualize because of the necessity of crossing disciplinary boundaries. The result is that researchers in different disciplines construct their own implicit, and often unsatisfactory, models of either individual or collective phenomena, which in turn influence their theoretical and empirical work. In this book, Drew Westen attempts to cross these boundaries, proposing an interdisciplinary approach to personality, to culture, and to the relation between the two. Part I of the book sets forth a model of personality that integrates psychodynamic analysis with an understanding of cognitively mediated conditioning and social learning. In Part II, Westen offers a view of culture that blends symbolic and materialist modes of discourse, examining the role of both ideals and 'material' needs in motivating symbolic as well as concrete social structural processes. In Part III, he combines these models of personality and culture through an examination of cultural evolution and stasis, identity and historical change, and the impact of technological development on personality. Throughout the book, Westen provides reviews of the state of the art in a variety of fields, including personality theory, moral development, ego development, and culture theory. He also addresses and recasts central issues in psychology, sociology, anthropology, and social theory, such as the relations between emotion and cognition; social learning and psychodynamics; ideals and material forces; and individual and collective action. His book will appeal to students and scholars in all the social sciences, as well as to any reader concerned with understanding the relation between individuals and the world in which they live.

So many times have I seen libertarians bashing collectivism and embracing individualism - identifying with being a part of a group is "bad" (hmmm, how about libertarianism?). Why is that? How is being a part of a group a bad thing? And why do libertarians place an emphasis on the individual?

First off, libertarians tend to have an infatuation (that is pretty sensible, in my opinion) with the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence. There go dat word.

Both of these documents reiterate the importance of individualism, based on the teachings of John Locke and other philosophers.

I have found that the more well-off a society becomes, the more they will rely less on each other (and become vegetarians). This may or may not have a negative impact.

Some societies are very grounded in a collectivist and familial way of life, such as China and Japan. Both countries have been negatively affected by the western world because their traditional background differs very much from how most modern people there are starting to live their lives. I read about a study (not sure how long it will take, but I will find where I read this and put it here) where they found that Japanese exchange students have a more profound sense of individualism after living in America for some months.

Humans are naturally collectivists. Without being so, we would not be living today. However, some of us are evolving (a teensy bit) out of it.

If it's natural...then why is it a bad thing?

Tobacco is also natural.

For the most part, I think collectivism is a good thing. However, as anyone will learn in their psychology 101 class, being in groups can negatively affect your thoughts and behavior.

While collectivism has made the human species even exist, it also has its consequences:

1) Groupthink

2) Racism

These are 2 among many other problems. This stuff is bad today, but back then, this way of thinking saved our butts. We haven't evolved from it.

What problem, then, do I have with libertarians flaunting individualism? It's excessive. It is not how we evolved as a species. Don't get me going on whether or not I think it's something we should try to evolve out of. People today suffer from depression and loneliness because of our obsession with standing out. Not to mention each family in America only usually consists of the parents and their children in their little box tucked away from society, and in our ideal world, each family member (maybe except for the parents) would want even more exclusion with a room that belongs all to his or herself - hence, that will make the person secluded from the family, the family secluded from the neighborhood, the neighborhood secluded from the other neighborhoods, etc.

While on this sour note, here is what I think is probably the loneliest-sounding songs from all time:

By talking about humans naturally being collectivists, I am not saying we should all be talkative, social butterflies. I am an introvert. I also am a bit (and by "a bit," I mean very much so) anti-social. Nevertheless, some people are surprised because they find me to be very extroverted (I mean, others also find me the "most quiet person they have ever met"). One friend called me a "social introvert" - meaning that I realize the importance of being social. Trust me, that took years for me to do. I'm still working on it. Was this nurture or nature? My parents tell me that this part of my personality reminds me of my mom's father, a retired US Navy electrician from the Philippines. My parents and older sister are very outgoing. My little sister and I tend to be more quiet, although she definitely makes friends more easily than I do. Either way, I like being by myself most of the time, but that doesn't mean I forget to work on my relationships with other people.

Advertisement

Am I for totally blocking out the idea of individualism? Of course not. In my mind, collectivism is necessary because it is how we survive as human beings, and how we will continue to survive for the next thousands of years...of course that is if we even survive. I always have this lingering feeling of the destruction of the human race from a meteor or something hitting the Earth...or the sun dying...or something else that happens in space.

What do I like about individualism? When not viewed in a self-centered way, it's what makes us who we are as people. As individuals, we contribute our own unique talents to how we function as a society. That is why I, a libertarian, consider myself to be a collectivist.

Wowee, this was supposed to be a short note.

If you want to support an individual, support me.

Become a Patron!