h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Most of the ills facing our society today are caused by the cult of the individual getting totally out of hand. We must make it clear to each and every individual that we will restrict their rights, and constrain their freedoms, wherever we - the members of society - feel it is necessary or appropriate.

Discuss.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Exactly in what way are many of our problems caused by TCOTI? I don't see how pollution, war, famine, mass inequality, or any of many other problems are related.

I think you're confusing "individual" and "anti-social". I am a passionate individualist (I hate rules and prefer to trust my own judgement, prefer to work alone rather than as part of a "team" and like control over my own life rather than have someone organise it) but I'm not anti-social. I don't drop litter, or graffiti public/private property, I pay taxes (although I tend to be *very* concerned about how my money is spent) and I buy the "Big Issue".

Many of the ills that people blame on a "cult of the individual" are actually the product of anti-social or even sociopathic mentalities. It's best not to get the two confused.

My OED gives two wildly different meanings for "individualism". Firstly, "the habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant," which sounds much like what Zagreb was talking about in the previous post; secondly, "self-centred feeling or conduct; egoism," which I imagine is closer to what Pattern-chaser was thinking of.

I think we live in a society which fosters a lot of "individualism" as per the latter definition, but not a whole lot of the former. The messages that we pick up from the media encourage us to consume mindlessly and excessively, thinking only of our own short-term benefits, and to put aside any dark thoughts of what all this might be leading to in the future.

The only people that I see around me who are interested in resisting that sort of sheep-like idiocy, are freethinking types who insist on the right to make their own judgements and moral choices, even if these override conventional wisdom (but not the law, of course); that is to say, individualists.

It seems to me that a little more of the responsible kind of individualism would do us all a lot of good.


Lear

Greetings, Pattern-Chaser, Malaclypse, Zagreb, Lear, et cetera.

Now, for our answers:

R. Daneel Olivaw:

<>

<>


Agnostic Primist:

<>

<>


Justinian Apprentice:

<>

Thanks, Lear, you seem to have grasped what I was getting at! In terms of your dictionary definitions, it's "self-centred conduct" I meant when I referred to the COTI: selfishness. IMO, people act far too much for their own purposes and aims, without considering how this might impinge on others trying to do exactly the same thing for themselves. This is the reason why we *should* behave (partly) in a manner which is for the benefit of others.

R. Daneel Olivaw comments Au contraire, RDO, society exists for the benefit of the individual, *and* vice versa. The relationship (between the individual and society) is recursively symbiotic, or something along those lines. RL dictates, as it often does, that the only practical path is the middle one; the compromise.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I think that's a philosophical position rather than actuality, Patter-chaser. What you think is 'society _should_...'. I think the reality is closer to the original quote. Sadly in my opinion I should add. But then societys which have nominally been set up so that the individual is subordinated entirely to the good of society have functioned possibly even worse, not just for most of the actual individuals in question, but for the society as a whole.

I mean the bit of the quote you quoted. *drat where's the wobbly smiley when you need it>* The rest of it: I sunno, I think the job of a good society is to be able to encompass as many different viewpoints as possible. The problem isn't in people's ideas or lifestyle choices, but in those who will take advantage cos they can winning out over those who generally try to stand on their own two feet and get by within the system.

"Au contraire, RDO, society exists for the benefit of the individual, *and* vice versa."

I disagree.


"The relationship (between the individual and society) is recursively symbiotic, or something along those lines."

Yes, but the justification of the society is that it is better for the individual. The society benefits, but this is irrelevant. It is like saying that you have a symbiotic relationship with your automobile because you keep it in good repair and it allows you to travel faster and farther than you could on foot. The point is valid, but your car exists for your benefit. In no way do you exist for your car's benefit. A person without a car useful. A car without a person is useless. Similarly, a person without a society has value; a society without people has no value.


"RL dictates, as it often does, that the only practical path is the middle one; the compromise."

A compromise is necesary if society will exist, since individuals will naturally conflict with each other. However, the compromise should be abandoned if it has less benefit to the individual than it has detriment to the individual. And only the individual can judge this, not the society or other individuals.

RDO... You say "a person without a society has value," but in what sense? I don't see how someone could grow up totally free from all social interaction, and still be able to make their way in the world. Surely much of our sense of what is valuable and what isn't, comes from the society that we grow up in?

The relationship you have with your car is basically functional: it's a machine that you use to get around more quickly and efficiently, and there isn't much more to it than that. The relationship that most people have with the society they live in is never going to be as straightforward: there are mythological and emotional factors that come into play as well.

Members of a healthy society tend to perceive it as more than just the sum of its parts - ie, as more than just a collection of self-serving individuals. And I think that is actually necessary for the preservation of the society: if people don't feel that loyalty, then it's very difficult to persuade them to do things like defend it when it's under threat.

So I think it is accurate to say, as Pattern-chaser does, that the relationship between the individual and the wider society is symbiotic - it works both ways. Or, at least, it should do. Too much of an imbalance one way or the other is probably unhealthy for both a society and the individuals living within it.


Lear

Solnuska
That is the IDEAL function of a society, yeah. But the ACTUAL function is picking a majority viewpoint and through enculturisation and sublime persuasions, force it on everyone unwittingly.

*grins* OK, so I'm idealistic too. But while I agree with you that that may be at the heart of a society, the more flexible it is in reality, the better it survives. If it tries to impose One View too rigourously, it implodes. Or explodes. I don't think the point of a society isn't idealistic really: it's pragmatic. It's just something which works well enough so that large numbers of people can coexist reasonable well to get things done.

Society is the *context* of the individual. The two simply cannot be prised apart without consequences. And community should not be confused with statism.

Diversity is only good up to a point. There has also to be a shared core of common values or the web of mutual trust and obligation that constitutes a community falls apart, to the detriment of all its members. Law and contract, while essential in a modern society, rely heavily on the internalization of more informal rules to be workable.

For an example of a society that is losing its communitarian values as it promotes the cult of the individual look no further than the USA. As the sense of trust and obligation declines, street crime, corporate crime, and settlement of dispute by litigation rather than arbitration and negotiation spiral out of control. Is that really the road we want to go down?

Noggin

the problem with communalism is the imposition of the majority unfairly on the individual. it is not the individuals' right to litter communal property. it is not the community's right to decide what the individual can or cannot do in the privacy of his home

Unfairly? Why is it unfair?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I think that the individual versus society debate is not one that's going to be solved anytime soon.

I too think that there are dangers in the Cult of the Individual (COTI), as epitomised by Margaret Thatcher who is alleged to have said that "there's no such thing as society".

Stressing the role of the society and the community rather than the individual is not neccesarily an illiberal impulse that would restrict freedom. Rather, it's the view that society is primarily a cooperative enterprise rather than a competitive one, that a society is only as strong as its weakest members, that no person is an island, that the fate of one person affects everyone else.

It's true that members of society do have to have a set of values that are broadly shared by nearly every member, but these values can actually be quite "thin", and need not impose many restrictions on individual behaviour. Particuarly if one of those shared values is toleration and a belief in liberty.

Otto

[waves to Lear]

PC:

RDO:

Your argument seems to miss the point that society is composed of individuals: "...society benefits, but this is irrelevant". Irrelevant, I think not. To say that society benefits can mean nothing other than that its individual members benefit. I think that's relevant, don't you?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

the best way to illustrate some of these principles is by example surely. the hard shoulder has a purpose, to allow broken down vehicles etc to move over and allow the traffic to keep moving. in a traffic jam, individuals decide that in their interests it is better for them to break the rules and use the hard shoulder. when enough people do this the benefit of having a hard shoulder is lost. there's probably better examples, but this illustrates the problem of the COTI even though I am a great believer in indivdual rights

Either a governing society must have no viewpoint, one viewpoint, or all viewpoints, just like individuals. You can't just have two or three, because they'd conflict and people would wonder why just two or three, why not ten or a hundred. Am I making sense?
Perhaps it IS possible to have a community with no common values except in name. EU, anyone? Okay, make that a *nonsquabbling* community.

a better example is yellow boxes at junctions. an individual might decide its better to block the box to speed up his journey but then if enough people do it everyone's journey slows down as traffic gets gridlocked. so individuals can voluntarily forgo rights and still benefit themselves