To be frustrated that people don't understand that individualism is not compatible with a collectivist mindset?

[User09678]

Which we need to solve most of our most critical and existential issues?

Any mass restructing of society is usually violent. I'd be in favour of gradual change, not revolution, and there always needs to be a balance between the individual and collectivism. Also society is not just about the collective v the individual, there are also lots of family and other groups.

And I don't think there has been an increase in individualism in the last 30 years. The last 300, perhaps.

Interesting debate.
I do think individualism has a lot to answer for regarding not just morals, lack of community and behaviour, but physical and mental health.
I've always found research on 'blue zones' to be interesting, small pockets where people are living longer and better. Community is a big aspect for each of those zones - impacts everything.

Where and when does a true democracy exist? Do you think we're in one now? Do you think it produces a kind of collective wisdom that can solve our problems?

What aboit an uncorruptable caste of philosopher kings?

What definition of individualism do you have in mind?

They're both relative to a certain extent.

I agree, I think people are happier when they feel part of a community...e.g. people moving out to a village to be part of a community, or joining a church, or people suggesting volunteering for people who are feeling lonely.

I also don't like how everything seems like a competition sometimes...e.g. sometime the talk about education is very much 'is it worth it financially/you'll be competing for jobs'

Yep. It leads to ever accelerating fragmentation through semantic breakdown. There's no longer even common language.

People who are integrated are happier and more content. But some experience this as oppression

Tell me more about these blue zones, where are they and what characterises their population, are they created or incidental or grew organically?

It starts with the breakdown of family. People can't even prioritise their own family anymore let alone form bonds with a community.
It's also hard when in many places, communities are mixed and pitted against each other via media and social media.
I remember hearing an interesting survey once. (Recalling from memory so figures might not be accurate)
People were asked if they had a choice of winning £1 million for themselves or £5 million but their neighbour also won £5 million, which one would you chose?
Most people went for the £1 million

I'm not proposing violent revolution to be clear!! Just thought it might be an interesting discussion. What makes you think individualism hasn't increased in the past 30 years? 30 years ago there were still plenty of back water enclaves which hadn't been fully ravaged by neoliberalism yet. People knew their neighbours and held to a far closer consensus in terms of worldview and outlook than exist now. They had a more collectivist mindset and common identity.

That's shocking, can that be right?

Depends on your neighbours. One side yes the other not so much.
Seriously though more and more people are putting themselves first, just look at litter, dog poo,parking. Just everyday annoyances like these.

This is interesting, but can you explain what you mean?

Otherwise we can just think of the worst bits of individualism and the best of collectivism, or vice versa, and we won't really get very far.

For example, if we could scrap the human rights act (individualist) to get greater GDP or faster scientific progress (often a goal of collectivist systems historically), should we?

The old "rights without responsibilities" moan. I guess it depends exactly what you're talking about.

There's certainly a small amount of downright lazy, selfish behaviour going on (from parking on double yellows up to benefit fraud).

There's a lot more "bare minimum" behaviour (large parts of society are propped up by a small number of volunteers/charitees - food banks, play groups, PTAs, youth groups, seniors groups). Often this is because people have literally nothing left in the tank at various points in their life

And then there's people who are increasingly refusing to make themselves ill for the benefit of their employer. Expectations of working days have definitely shifted in most sectors, and I think this is perfectly reasonable. Why should an individual worker go above and beyond to line someone else's pockets?

They were talking on R4 the other day about Biden's warning about the US moving towards an oligarchy. Seemingly this phase of a few individuals becoming incredibly wealthy and powerful in a fairly short space of time is very often followed by revolution....

Possibly it’s a logical progression and comes from a subsection of societyrealising that they were paying a lot more into the “village” than they were getting out through unpaid labour. There’s a good book called “The Tyraanny of Participation” which looks at community dynamics from a development perspective and it’s definitely not a group of individuals working equally to a common goal and splitting the benefits.

What’s the difference between Democracy and mob rule?

DB said he’d obviously vote for the person who’d benefit him.
I would vote for the person who’d benefit the most vulnerable, because any of us or our loved ones can become the most vulnerable.

Democracy only works if you can convince people they need to consider other people. It’s not working well at the moment.

Perhaps you are very young but I don't notice a big change in attitude from 30 years ago. That was 1994!

Most people don't think about this stuff at all and are not affected by neoliberalism or any other social or political movement. Certainly not in as short a space of time as 30 years. And of those who are politically engaged as many reject political ideas as others embrace them.

The 1960s were a lot about collectvism but also about the cult of the individual. As were the 1890s. Know your history first.

@andIsaid - I don't understand what you don't understand. Op captured her discussion point succinctly in her post. This clip demonstrates why individualism it is not in society's best interests . 1_

@User09678 I agree - like how some teenagers will leave their villagers for London etc. at 18 and then only live in cities for the rest of their lives. (But obviously other people love rural life and recreate it for themselves as adults)

The root of this is that our democracy is failing - the governments we've elected haven't done what they were elected to do. So people wonder what the point of it all is and that they might as well just do what's best for themselves!

If there's to be any meaningful change, the govt has to start actually representing the people and protecting the most vulnerable. We need properly functioning public services that everyone feels invested in and that both rich and poor use.

What an interesting thread. I was having a similar conversation with DS last night. I have nothing to add for now, but just want to mark my place!

I agree with you that we need a collective mindset to solve humanities problem. But I don't think it's right that there can't be any individualism. I actually think individualism is an important human characteristic and can sometimes be helpful. There needs to be a balance.
I tend to look at it as personal and public. Society could do with a lot more joined up collective focused thinking in public life. However in people's personal lives there does need to be some individualism.

As a woman I find this particularly important. It's easy as a woman to be pushed into a self-sacrificing traditional gender role.

So do you think one day it will just be perfect and everything will go well?

Of course governments and the collective get things right or wrong. It's only a collective of imperfect humans.

Indeed. And in terms of my family and those close to me, the whole mass of other humanity isn't anywhere near a priority. Society is a mass collective of collective interests, it's not a bunch of individuals all each going in a different direction.