Why Individualists Are More Vulnerable to Dictatorship
After the Olympics last fall David Brooks wrote a thoughtful article comparing individualism and collectivism. He cited studies showing that individualists fail to see contexts and tend to overestimate themselves, while collectivists see relationships and tend to underestimate themselves. He seemed to be acknowledging that despite the failure of communism, and the economic superiority of the individualistic mentality, the collectivist mentality might have something to offer. It was a fine, balanced analysis, marred only by a deeply erroneous final sentence summing up the "ideal of harmonious collectivism". This, he says, is "a useful ideology for aspiring autocrats".
The truth is, history and research both tell us that the reverse is true--that a collective mentality is the best protection against autocracy. After all, the oldest strategy in the world is 'divide and conquer'.
When De Tocqueville came to the United States in the mid-19th century it wasn't just the personal freedom of Americans that impressed him, it was the incredible proliferation of associations--of clubs, societies, and activist groups. And this is, in fact, what political scientist Robert Putnam found differentiated the democratic Northern Italian from the authoritarian, mafia-dominated South. The North was characterized by a rich variety of clubs and societies. The Southerners, by contrast, were suspicious of their neighbors, saw any kind of cooperative behavior as dangerous, and longed for stronger law enforcement. Their relationships were vertical rather than horizontal, due to their dependence upon wealthy land-holding patrons who doled out favors to the subservient.
Despots are not afraid of individuals. They're afraid of populations. But the ideal American hero is a loner, and hence, a loser. We celebrate the Cowboy, incapable of cooperating with anyone, and hence no threat to those in power. Action movies are full of them--lone Rambos and Bonds, blasting away at the enemy, heroic in the movies, utterly ineffectual In real life. (As symbols, of course, they're very effective in persuading the ovine to smoke, be paranoid, and carry guns).
As Putnam observed in his book Bowling Alone, voluntary associations in the United States have been on the decline for many decades. There are many reasons for this, but the rise of strongly anti-democratic media is certainly one.
After the last individualistic greed orgy brought about the 1929 catastrophe, ordinary people realized they needed to band together to protect themselves. Veterans marched on Washington, unions fought for decent wages, and so on. FDR got the credit (and blame) for institutionalizing what ordinary Americans in cooperation had initiated. Then the 'Red Scare' of the Forties and Fifties gave Republicans a prime opportunity to demonize as 'communistic' any sign of collaboration among peers. Republicans, who have never really cottoned to democracy--except as a code word for free market capitalism--have made good use of individualistic ideology.
One reason Americans are so confused on this issue is because authoritarians of every stripe--in the military, in schools, in bureaucratic corporations, in mafia movies--use the word 'cooperation' as a euphemism for obedience.
The freedom individuals have in our society is something to be treasured, but the moment individualistic ideology begins to cripple our ability to cooperate in order to achieve common goals, authoritarian rule is only a whisper away.
In his inauguration speech, Obama talked of a whole new way of doing things. To understand the cultural paradigm shift that engendered this change--the shift that both Bush and the Taliban have resisted so fiercely, see my website for information on THE CHRYSALIS EFFECT: THE METAMORPHOSIS OF GLOBAL CULTURE.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I went to a 4 year state university to study English. 4 years later, now, I realize I was being taught to analyze, criticize and theorize..
Thru spiritual seeking, yoga, psychadelics, ect. I've come to some deep learning that surpasses any knowledge or ability to think critically. There is only one consciousness. We're all in this together.
Now, when I meet with people, instead of thinking about how I can poke holes in their argument or undermine their theories, I think "How can we colaborate? How can we co-create?" I look for the essence in things instead of what's good or bad or right or wrong.
I was just watching a trailer for an 1970s cheapie action flick where "one man will stand up against the mob," and I thought of this article. They show a long car chase, the individual on the run from the police and his many other pursuers, and I remembered that all the action sequences showing the hero on his own wouldn't be possible without the vast, coordinated support team that is a film crew. The car couldn't last through one of those stunts.
We have an industry that dedicates millions of man-hours in vast collective efforts, and the irony is that the films so often preach the opposite of the very activity that makes them possible. Just a dumb thought.
In my own life, I see neo-liberals as being just as bad as neo-cons in promoting rampant individualism. It breaks my heart to admit that of all places, individualism is endorsed by faculty in my graduate program--which happens to be sociology. Divide-and-rule tactics are the law of the land there.
I was intrigued by the post title but the article didn't really support it. And I'm disappointed, because I'm interested in how you reached that conclusion. How is it easier for a despot to impose control on a population of individuals than a population with a collective mentality? It seems like the one is more akin to herding cats, while with the other, you need merely influence the bellwethers and let the herd follow.
Listen to Chomsy discuss class warfare in the context of individualism and democracy:
http://www
(There are 3 parts.)
I'm surprised that you are confused about Dr. Slater's point. When people actually care about one another and aren't completely self-interested and self-absorbed, they are much less likely to consider as legitimate those who openly seek to decimate civil liberties, human rights, workers' rights, etc. Those who are more apt to believe maxims like "it takes a village to raise children" or "I am my brother's keeper" understand that their own destiny is tied to others, and understand that fighting against injustice and fighting for the those who are oppressed and disadvantaged means fighting for their own existence.
With an atomized population such as we have, it's easy for people like Glenn Beck to attract viewers to his deranged sentiment that, "in the United States, you have the right to starve to death," and to get away with spewing such garbage without any resistance.
...sorry, that particular version of Chomsky's lecture has 6 parts.
I listen to reich wingers talking about individualism, and people calling into c-span morning show not wanting the government to mess w their individual rights. Most of the callers are from 'red states' and most of them have no job, no security but they don't want the government messing w their individual rights. It's like 'what's the matter w Kansas". The pundits have their own tv or radio show making millions a year spewing that individualist crap. They don't care, for they are paid by corporations to keep spewing that crap so they can keep ripping us off and dumbing us down so we can keep blaming the government when it's them authoritarian corporations that's controlling us.
Here's how deTocqueville said it:
----------
THAT THE AMERICANS COMBAT THE EFFECTS
OF INDIVIDUALISM BY FREE INSTITUTIONS
DESPOTISM which by its nature is suspicious, sees in the separation among men the surest guarantee of its continuance, and it usually makes every effort to keep them separate. No vice of the human heart is so acceptable to it as selfishness: a despot easily forgives his subjects for not loving him, provided they do not love one another.
----------
Which is not to say, as I'm sure others will point out, that despotism is unknown in collectivist countries. Cultural Revolution, Khmer Rouge, etc.
Here's how deTocqueville said it:
THAT THE AMERICANS COMBAT THE EFFECTS
OF INDIVIDUALISM BY FREE INSTITUTIONS
DESPOTISM which by its nature is suspicious, sees in the separation among men the surest guarantee of its continuance, and it usually makes every effort to keep them separate. No vice of the human heart is so acceptable to it as selfishness: a despot easily forgives his subjects for not loving him, provided they do not love one another.
Which is not to say, as I'm sure others will point out, that despotism is unknown in collectivist countries. Cultural Revolution, Khmer Rouge, etc.
Society is about the "we" society not the "me" society we see in the business world. Governments must realize that globalization is an effort to break down the social contract by outsourcing for cheap labor. The rugged individualism of the American is good for the frontier existence of the 1800's. But it is a collectivism that is required to solve the problems faced by our species. One thing is that fewer people are needed here on planet earth. The moral thing to do is to limit population growth. Uncontrolled growth is a form of cancer. There is no virtue in population growth, only certain ruin for all as conflict over resources such as food and water increase. Wars are driven by exactly these same short resources, including petroleum.
Governments know what globalization is. It's citizens who have been slow learners.
The hyper-indi
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
