What Is Social Individualism
Social Individualism is the combination of both the importance of the individual
and the importance of the group. Is the belief that both must be combined.
Both groups and the individuals who make it up are equally important.
Both (traditional) individualism, with it's focus on the individual,
and (traditional) collectivism, with it's focus on the group, are not only
wrong but actually two sides of the same coin.
Individualists often claim that "there is no society, only individuals."
But this is untrue, there are not only individuals but also relations
and interactions between those individuals. Humans do not exist in
a vacuum but interact with other humans from the time we are born. Groups
and associations are an essential part of life; individuals cannot discuss
or live by themself. By cooperating together individuals can achieve
goals which would be more difficult (or impossible) on their own and to
improve their situation. Forming groups enables individuals to meet
their needs and coordinate their actions. Individualism actually leads
to forms of collectivism such as capitalist companies. Because of
their abstract narrow focus on the individual individualists do not see
any signifigant difference between groups structured in hierarchical or
non-hierarchical manners. As such they generally end up supporting
hierarchical organizations which in practice operate in a very collectivist
manner. How a group is organized has a great deal of effect on the
individuals in that group; hierarchical organization tends to destroy their
individuality. In hierarchical organizations individuals are subordinated
to those on the top of the hierarchy and expected to obey them. This
destroys the individuality of those in the organization; instead of thinking
and acting for themselves they are turned into drones who obey the great
leader(s). This leads to collectivist results, with individuality destroyed.
Capitalism is actually a very collectivist system; it turns the majority
of the population into worker-drones who obey their wealthy masters. Individuality
is reduced to choosing between pepsi and coke.
For the purposes of this essay "collectivism" refers to the idea that
the interests of the individual must be subordinated to that of the group
(the term can mean other things in different contexts). The most obvious
problem with this idea is that groups are made up of individuals; putting
those same individuals above themselves is absurd and self-contradictory.
You can't subordinate them to themselves, that's the same as not subordinating
them at all. What this really means in practice is subordinating most
of the individuals in the group to other individuals in the group. A
hierarchy is created with some individuals controlling other individuals.
The "interests of the group" (often called "the common good" or "national
interest" or some other euphamism) really means the interests of those on
the top of the hierarchy. Collectivist ideaology acts to legitimize
hierarchy and solidify the control of those on the top by demanding that
those on the bottom subordinate themselves to the "common good" which means
the interests of those on the top. The interests of the elite are falsely
equated with the interests of everyone in the group. A common defense
of this is that individuals and groups need coordination, which is often
true, but this does not mean that we need a hierarchy or any kind of centralization;
it is entirely possible for individuals and groups to coordinate their actions
without hierarchy based on voluntary cooperation. Collectivism actually
results in an odd form of individualism, the cult of personality and leader
worship. This it not surprising, since all individuals in the group
are expected to suppress their own individuality in order to do "what's
best for the group" (which is a euphamism for what's best for those are
on the top). Those on the top are thus the only ones with the individuality
necessary to make decisions and leader worship develops partly out of this.
This can be observed in practice by looking at the various Marxist
and Fascist regimes, all of which suppressed the individuality of everyone
but the great leader, whose individuality was taken to an extreme and glorified.
Even small Marxist and fascist groups, not whole regimes, tend to
exhibit this tendency.
Usually individualists value freedom over equality, while collectivists
do the reverse. Social individualism, on the other hand, values both.
Opponets of freedom often claim freedom must be limited because the
freedom of different people conflicts with each other. For example,
the freedom of one man to own slaves conflicts with the freedom of the slaves
to be free. The problem with this is that it is based on an overly broad
conception of freedom. To consider the ability to own slaves "freedom"
is a rather perverted conception of freedom. Freedom should properly
be concieved of as control over one's own life; I am free when I control
my own life instead of being bossed around by others. Control of other
people (whether this is slavery or some other form of control) is not freedom
but hierarchy. Human beings do not exist in a vacuum but constantly
interact with each other, which is where equality comes in. In order
for social relations to be chracterized as free they must also be equal. Opponets
of equality like to invent all sorts of straw men about equality meaning
some totalitarian society where everyone is forced to be identical in everyway
and other nonsense. Few advocates of equality, even hardline collectivists,
advocate everyone being identical in every way. Equality is a social
relation in which all have equal power and wealth; it does not mean everyone
being identical. Inequalities of wealth tend to create inequalities
of power and vice versa.
Equality is necessary to have freedom and vice versa. If there is
no equality then some people do not have as much power as others and are
thus subordinated to them; there is a hierarchy. If some are subordinated
to others then there isn't freedom because those subordinated do not have
control over their own lives; some people have control over other people.
Equality is a requirement for freedom. The inverse is also true;
freedom is a requirement for equality. If there is no freedom then there
is a hierarchy, some have control over (and thus more power) than others.
If there is a hierarchy then there is no equality because some people
have more power/wealth than people. Far from being mutually contradictory,
(individual) freedom and (social) equality are two sides of the same coin.
The usual arguement that freedom and equality conflict is based on overly
broad conceptions of freedom (or straw men of equality). Typically this
involves including private property as part of freedom. Private property
obviously conflicts with equality but it also conflicts with freedom. Private
property means some, the owners, dominate others and is thus not comptable
with freedom. Thus removing private property (and any other form of
hierarchy) from freedom means that it is not incompatable with equality.
Both individualism and collectivism are two sides of the same authoritarian
coin. By focusing only on freedom and rejecting (or downplaying) equality
individualism ends up opposing freedom as well. By focusing only on
equality and rejecting (or downplaying) freedom collectivism ends up opposing
equality as well. Both oppose freedom and equality and act to legitimize
authoritarian social relations whereby a small elite dominates and exploits
the majority of the population. Neither individuals nor groups are more
important than the other nor do they conflict with each other. To value
one over the other is just a veiled apology for authoritarianism.