Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

192 replies

User09678 · 18/01/2025 14:12

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

OP posts:
Tumbleweed101 · 19/01/2025 09:42

I think the attitude about having a family has turn completely around in current times. It is seen as a parents choice so let them struggle to raise them. In fact children are necessary for society to continue as those children supported by society now will be the ones running the country when we are old and can not longer work ourselves.

A lot of social policies such as council housing- when it first began - were to strengthen communities by helping people settle down and start families in one place rather a transient population struggling to find housing. We have gone backwards with this as young people are losing their roots and motivation to care as they can’t afford to stay in their community.

It is definitely a fine balance between letting individuals use their interests and strengths against the need for society as a whole to work toward the same goal.

Anniedash · 19/01/2025 09:47

Exactly, individualism is far more important and successful than collectivism.

Any progress in history has come off the back of individualistic tendencies and letting people reap the fruits of their own work. Eventually those innovations and progress end up benefitting all.

Anniedash · 19/01/2025 09:50

foghead · 19/01/2025 07:32

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

That’s the exact opposite of individualism. I think you have your understanding confused.

PokerFriedDips · 19/01/2025 09:51

Extremes of individualism and collectivism are both equally damaging in different ways. What we need is a bakance where individuals have some freedom to maximise their individual situation while constrained by a collectivist pressure from a government structure. That's why governments that are focussed on an individualist mindset are so damaging.

Ponoka7 · 19/01/2025 09:51

User09678 · 19/01/2025 08:24

No, my perfect society would be an absolute Catholic Monarchy, but we all know how that thread would go!

Ahh you are into forced birth.
I wondered why feminism was being completely ignored.

GutsyShark · 19/01/2025 09:51

NordicwithTeen · 18/01/2025 15:08

There was something on the radio earlier about 1 in 5 wishing we were in a dictatorship in UK. If the recent democratically elected idiots are anything to go by that is quite concerning.

I do think jobs and pay would be a good place to start restructuring society. Jobs that care for others should be given highest pay, while sales and less ethically clear jobs should be paid on a sliding scale of over all net benefit to society. The economic model that profit for board members trumps all has encouraged societal greed and an ethical vacuum. I don't know why but males seem to be less likely to think of others meaning women are doing the majority of the care roles. Hearing social care described as "low skill" all of last week was really revolting to me.

How are you going to do that without becoming a dictatorship? People earning high salaries will never agree to it, they’d have to be forced to accept it.

GretchenWienersHair · 19/01/2025 09:58

Anniedash · 19/01/2025 09:47

Exactly, individualism is far more important and successful than collectivism.

Any progress in history has come off the back of individualistic tendencies and letting people reap the fruits of their own work. Eventually those innovations and progress end up benefitting all.

Any progress in history has come off the back of individualistic tendencies and letting people reap the fruits of their own work. Eventually those innovations and progress end up benefitting all.

Can you give an example of this?

MaryBeardy · 19/01/2025 10:00

Bookmarking. Lovely thread

AlisonDonut · 19/01/2025 10:03

GretchenWienersHair · 19/01/2025 09:58

Any progress in history has come off the back of individualistic tendencies and letting people reap the fruits of their own work. Eventually those innovations and progress end up benefitting all.

Can you give an example of this?

Can you give an example of a collectivist invention that benefits all?

GretchenWienersHair · 19/01/2025 10:04

AlisonDonut · 19/01/2025 10:03

Can you give an example of a collectivist invention that benefits all?

No. I’m not trying to argue with you, I’m trying to understand your point. No need to be a dick about it.

Porcelainpig · 19/01/2025 10:07

Surely the reason things are so shit is because we have capitalism for the average person and socialism for the very rich. Elites don't own their mistakes or take responsibility, they still get paid for being greedy, narcissistic and incompetent. We just bail them out. I suppose the lack of law and order, services and austerity means that poorer robbing arseholes get the same privilege. It is the only area where there seems to be any equality. It seems to pay to be an arsehole in this society.

Cocorico22 · 19/01/2025 10:09

User09678 · 19/01/2025 07:22

What aboit an uncorruptable caste of philosopher kings?

Like Nigel Farage and Trump? lol good one

MistressoftheDarkSide · 19/01/2025 10:24

Very interesting thread.

So many conflicting interests in the world in general, plus the sense that we live in a time of engineered illusion in every area means we're struggling with cognitive dissonance both on a philosophical and practical level.

The only thing that most people are focused on is money. Without money, there is no power and little choice for the average person. The means to acquire the amount of money to cover basic necessities is being ever more tightly controlled, and increases inequality. The most basic bit of individualism is simply trying to survive on an economic level. On the one hand this depends on collectivism, but because of the underlying ideologies of who should be the "haves" and "have nots" we're floundering in terms of ethics and morals.

Is individualism the same as personal responsibility and the much vaunted demands for resilience? In which case collectivism is difficult to achieve.

Much of historical collectivism has been based on belief. People behaved "because God" or fear of punitive consequence from brutality regimes. There may have been good outcomes for communities that toed the line but outliers disagreeing with negative consequences were soon put in their place or simply eliminated.

Freedom of thought is fundamental but ironically these days we are hamstrung by the "thought police" more than ever, and investigation into why always leads back to whoever controls the purse strings, and by extension the mechanisms of power.

Individualism suits TPTB as it helps keep us atomised and under control. Getting collectives together to address issues affecting community depends on people being willing and available to gather and discuss solutions, yet due to work commitments, caring responsibilities etc etc, people can barely even organise leisure time with people they want to relax with never mind take on bigger external issues.

Even when there is common ground in fighting around individual differences of opinion dilutes the potential power of the collective because one group has blue hair, and another group thinks that those with tattoos are morally deficient and another group thinks that old people are the reason everything is wrong and so it goes on and on. (I've been on committees. It's a particular circle of hell).

Often collectivism is shot down by cries of "naive idealism" because even simple solutions to problems are mired in bureaucracy that makes action costly in terms of time and money.

I tried to volunteer at a local homeless charity when I had my own shop in an area where I could see clearly the problems caused by the issue. I went to their offices and asked how I'd go about it. The woman behind the desk rolled her eyes, huffed, shoved a leaflet at me, told me to go to their website, submit a form, they'd decide if I was suitable, and she then dismissed me. My collectivism bone shrank somewhat.

So, I'm out of the game now. An individual focused on survival, keeping my head down and relegated to the status of observer. Not just because of the charity incident, but because of many adjacent experiences where it appears that the collective is a bit of a myth these days.

Sad, but there it is.

AlisonDonut · 19/01/2025 10:28

GretchenWienersHair · 19/01/2025 10:04

No. I’m not trying to argue with you, I’m trying to understand your point. No need to be a dick about it.

It wasn't my point originally but I was trying to understand yours.

Surely you have heard of individuals who invent and innovate or even discover and everyone benefits?

SharpOpalNewt · 19/01/2025 10:45

Catapaulting · 19/01/2025 08:28

Can you explain the 300 years comment? I think there’s been a change even in the last few years.

Industrial revolution, development of capitalism, more variety of jobs instead of almost all working in similar jobs in farming, development of the middle classes, demonisation of the poor...read up on it.

whereaw · 19/01/2025 10:50

I also don't understand the frustration- we are an individual in so much as we have to be responsible for our own actions, even in a collectivist minded society, unless you are talking about one where there is complete control? Which surely no one would advocate for.
It's an interesting thread/ debate but the original post makes no sense.

I don't think that the most worthy aim in life is the benefit of the group, but rather our benefit within the group. Being a mother, friend, daughter, citizen etc. brings meaning and purpose at an individual level. It's not either/ or.
There is a place for collectivism and individualism.

ImustLearn2Cook · 19/01/2025 10:50

User09678 · 19/01/2025 07:25

What definition of individualism do you have in mind?

They're both relative to a certain extent.

Every person is a self governing individual part of a collective whole.

Autonomy (self governance) is one of our developmental milestones. Autonomy is naturally part of our human development. So is our bonding, belonging and connection to other human beings. We are social animals. We all need to be loved and nurtured to survive.

Balance is important. The four fundamental forces of nature keep the universe in balance.

If balance is so important, it stands to reason that the individual is equally important as the collective.

So, going from one extreme to the other is not going to be best for all of us. We will not thrive or do well in either extreme.

I agree with the sentiment of the pp you quoted who asked why can’t we have both. We can have both. We can value the individual and the whole of society and life on earth and value the universe.

And as for what definition of individualism do you have in mind, that is a good question. There are different versions of individualism and it can vary in different cultures. How France or England or the USA view, interpret and implement individualism differs.

There are also different versions of collectivism.

GretchenWienersHair · 19/01/2025 11:11

AlisonDonut · 19/01/2025 10:28

It wasn't my point originally but I was trying to understand yours.

Surely you have heard of individuals who invent and innovate or even discover and everyone benefits?

I don’t have a point. I said already, I have nothing to add to the thread but do find the views of others interesting.

From the top of my head, I can’t think of an innovation where everyone benefits. Smartphones, for example, benefit us in that they make life more efficient and communication and services are far more accessible, but there are thousands of people in places like Congo, where the minerals to make the iPhones are mined, who are suffering in order to provide us with said benefit. I can’t think of any examples where there is no negative impact on someone along the chain.

whaddayawannado · 19/01/2025 11:14

Jasnah · 18/01/2025 14:54

Agreed, but collectivism with a focus on what is good, overall, for society would take us into very dark corners of human ethics and morality.

I once had a history teacher who was fully convinced and vocal that a dictatorship is better for a country in the long run than democracy with a multi-party system.

Perhaps we went to the same school, I had a history teacher like that too. His political leanings crept into his lessons to an unnerving degree sometimes.

User09678 · 19/01/2025 11:48

Ponoka7 · 19/01/2025 09:51

Ahh you are into forced birth.
I wondered why feminism was being completely ignored.

Edited

Have you ever read Feminism Against Progress by Mary Harrington? I highly recommend it, even if you disagree with everything she says. Feminism is absolutely not being ignored and has already been mentioned in this thread by me if you had been reading a little closer. Feminism has to respond to the failure of of liberalism and biotech, and I don't see anything from 'magazine' feminism which can reassure me it's even aware of what's on the horizon let alone any form of response to it. "Forced birth" will be a picnic in comparison.

OP posts:
User09678 · 19/01/2025 11:52

Anniedash · 19/01/2025 09:47

Exactly, individualism is far more important and successful than collectivism.

Any progress in history has come off the back of individualistic tendencies and letting people reap the fruits of their own work. Eventually those innovations and progress end up benefitting all.

Thats quite a leap of faith, to assume that:

A. we are progressing (which begs the question - to what? And whose set of values has informed this as our collective goal)

And

B. When exactly will they benefit all? Have they really produced net gain until now? Or have they been offset by their tradeoffs? Will they worth it when we're all underwater?

OP posts:
User09678 · 19/01/2025 11:54

Tumbleweed101 · 19/01/2025 09:42

I think the attitude about having a family has turn completely around in current times. It is seen as a parents choice so let them struggle to raise them. In fact children are necessary for society to continue as those children supported by society now will be the ones running the country when we are old and can not longer work ourselves.

A lot of social policies such as council housing- when it first began - were to strengthen communities by helping people settle down and start families in one place rather a transient population struggling to find housing. We have gone backwards with this as young people are losing their roots and motivation to care as they can’t afford to stay in their community.

It is definitely a fine balance between letting individuals use their interests and strengths against the need for society as a whole to work toward the same goal.

Yes, children were once assets, when we were directly responsible for our own survival more children meant more hands and greater productivity. Now a child is seen as a liability at best and a selfish luxury at worst.

OP posts:
User09678 · 19/01/2025 11:59

MistressoftheDarkSide · 19/01/2025 10:24

Very interesting thread.

So many conflicting interests in the world in general, plus the sense that we live in a time of engineered illusion in every area means we're struggling with cognitive dissonance both on a philosophical and practical level.

The only thing that most people are focused on is money. Without money, there is no power and little choice for the average person. The means to acquire the amount of money to cover basic necessities is being ever more tightly controlled, and increases inequality. The most basic bit of individualism is simply trying to survive on an economic level. On the one hand this depends on collectivism, but because of the underlying ideologies of who should be the "haves" and "have nots" we're floundering in terms of ethics and morals.

Is individualism the same as personal responsibility and the much vaunted demands for resilience? In which case collectivism is difficult to achieve.

Much of historical collectivism has been based on belief. People behaved "because God" or fear of punitive consequence from brutality regimes. There may have been good outcomes for communities that toed the line but outliers disagreeing with negative consequences were soon put in their place or simply eliminated.

Freedom of thought is fundamental but ironically these days we are hamstrung by the "thought police" more than ever, and investigation into why always leads back to whoever controls the purse strings, and by extension the mechanisms of power.

Individualism suits TPTB as it helps keep us atomised and under control. Getting collectives together to address issues affecting community depends on people being willing and available to gather and discuss solutions, yet due to work commitments, caring responsibilities etc etc, people can barely even organise leisure time with people they want to relax with never mind take on bigger external issues.

Even when there is common ground in fighting around individual differences of opinion dilutes the potential power of the collective because one group has blue hair, and another group thinks that those with tattoos are morally deficient and another group thinks that old people are the reason everything is wrong and so it goes on and on. (I've been on committees. It's a particular circle of hell).

Often collectivism is shot down by cries of "naive idealism" because even simple solutions to problems are mired in bureaucracy that makes action costly in terms of time and money.

I tried to volunteer at a local homeless charity when I had my own shop in an area where I could see clearly the problems caused by the issue. I went to their offices and asked how I'd go about it. The woman behind the desk rolled her eyes, huffed, shoved a leaflet at me, told me to go to their website, submit a form, they'd decide if I was suitable, and she then dismissed me. My collectivism bone shrank somewhat.

So, I'm out of the game now. An individual focused on survival, keeping my head down and relegated to the status of observer. Not just because of the charity incident, but because of many adjacent experiences where it appears that the collective is a bit of a myth these days.

Sad, but there it is.

It is sad. I don't wonder if certain strains of identity politics have been sown because of their stunning ability to undermine collective endeavours, or if its just a happy accident for those who profit from our poverty and isolation

OP posts:
SoapySponge · 19/01/2025 12:01

How does "a collectivist mindset" differ from peer pressure?

User09678 · 19/01/2025 12:03

whereaw · 19/01/2025 10:50

I also don't understand the frustration- we are an individual in so much as we have to be responsible for our own actions, even in a collectivist minded society, unless you are talking about one where there is complete control? Which surely no one would advocate for.
It's an interesting thread/ debate but the original post makes no sense.

I don't think that the most worthy aim in life is the benefit of the group, but rather our benefit within the group. Being a mother, friend, daughter, citizen etc. brings meaning and purpose at an individual level. It's not either/ or.
There is a place for collectivism and individualism.

You don't feel that hypermodernity acts as a solvent against these relations? Leaving behind nothing but a frightened individual with nowhere to turn but the market. Because I think that's what's been happening and we're nearly there.

You don't feel the best societal institutions are built by people's sacrifices to the greater good? Without anyone willing to do that, you can't do anything. At all.

OP posts: