There may not be a more important battle of philosophy than the one centered between individualism vs collectivism. On one camp, you will find a sprawl of many different flags and banners that are all varying; they hold many distinct values, beliefs and convictions that often clash with one another, but they are all fiercely loyal to the one cause that binds them all: individualism. This philosophy takes on many forms: personal freedom, capitalism, meritocracy, but they all hold the belief that the value of life is important, not because you are simply born and have needs for sustenance, but because what you generate with your life, in the way you see fit, is what gives life value. The reason they fight this battle is to uphold this belief and defend their right to live it from those that wish to take it away.
On the other camp, you will find an orderly set of flags, banners, uniforms and values. Although they are all different in their thoughts, upbringing, experiences, they espouse the same set of values as everyone else. They claim that they fight for the other men in the ranks. The reason that this camp is fighting is, to put it simply: collectivism loves company.
These two opposing forces are destined to fight on the battlefield of the human mind as long as there are humans around to think.
One thing is for certain however, and that is both camps share a few common denominators. The common denominators that both camps share are the choices we make and the ones we can’t make. As a human being, the first decision made regarding our lives is the decision of our parents creating us. This is not a decision that the one being conceived is allowed to make, so in other words, we had no choice in the matter. Internally, our genes, potential advantages and disadvantages that our bodies will develop as we progress through life is not something we can pick and choose like the type of bouillon we buy at the supermarket. Externally, outside forces will dictate where we live and with whom in the beginning. This is the reality that every human faces when they are brought into this world. After a certain point, however, our lives slowly open up in a way so that it is our choices that allow us to shape the way we want to live, despite all that we cannot control.
And now for the differentiating factors. To start with, an Individualist reasons on the idea that his choices matter to him paramountly, the consequences of his choices are his to predict and deal with and that the choices of others outside his inner circle are of little concern as long as they do not affect him without his consent. The individualist makes choices for his own sake. A Collectivist believes that the choices one should make in his life should be in servitude towards others and to do what is best for others, not yourself. He places emphasis over the group as opposed to himself.
In the core of our decision making process are things like a person’s preferences, bias and values. The individualist will use his own reason to discern these factors and make a decision that is best for himself and what better way is there? We all have preferences whether we admit them to other people or not. They matter to a person and make up who we are. Bias will show itself in who we prefer to hang out with or who we give better treatment to in certain situations. Values dictate our code of ethics. An individualist will, with experience and from encountering the works of others, create his own rules on what is right and wrong. After creating these rules, he then goes out into the world and tests them out. If he finds that a rule or belief that he shares is incongruent with reality, then it is his sole responsibility to correct it and form another one.
In contrast, the collectivist thinks very differently. By championing groups over individuals, he does not look after his best interests, resulting in him being less happy than he could be. Also, by choosing to serve others, he must make judgments and decide on behalf of the interests of others. Inherently, this is flawed; in order to achieve the highest possible chance of a good decision being made, the decision maker must be the one in which the situation centers around. Why? Because who can come to a better decision on matters regarding you than yourself? The thoughts that fill our mind are unique to each person and from that springs up personality and preferences. By letting others decide the choices of your life, you give up your preferences because others will choose using their own, and you will end up not being as fulfilled as you could be.
Since humans are social, we naturally form groups; in this as well do individualists and collectivists differ. Individualists believe above all in voluntary action. Since it is not their business to dictate the wills of others, whenever a problem arises, they will produce a plan to solve it and offer it up to those that wish to join in on the plan. Others might give constructive criticism to the plan in order to improve on it, thus benefiting everybody. There may also be others that will develop plans of their own that are better or different enough for others to endorse it. Take capitalism, for example. For most of human history, there has never been a more superior system that takes the imagination, ingenuity and will of a man’s mind, lets it take shape, and puts it out there in a marketplace that is so vast and diverse, giving it the best fighting chance for someone else to deem it of value. This is the greatness of autonomous systems. When an individual can search and find something that someone made that speaks to him on a level that is in lockstep with his needs and wants, not only is he satisfied, but the person that created it will be as well because he will have gained something of value, in the form of money. Now, when others are given a choice to collaborate with whom they want, the concerted effort produces better results because they were not forced into it. In this system, the reasons one may join a company, for example, is because they believe in what the company offers, or they have a unique skill set that the company deems is of value and the person may leverage that to receive high amounts of money. In either case, both are much more preferable to the other system.
Collectivists, in the service of others, champion the idea of centralized planning. An arbiter, usually the government, will decide the supply and demand of all sectors of industries, or at least as much as they can get. In deciding the level of supply, you coerce workers like farmers to come in and work the lands when there is a high need for supply and forcibly remove them from their fields when there is less need of it. By doing this, you treat people like slaves where they are forced to work against their will for a common goal that is not consensually accepted by everyone and is set by a group that is not even on the field themselves. In deciding the levels of demand, the government forces people to consume what they think they should consume and not what each individual actually wants to. Again, this is flawed because it gives all the power to a group that ‘knows what’s best for you’ all the time, when they are not the ones that know what you want. That knowledge belongs to each individual.
Whichever framework a person may wish to take, it boils all down to choices. Behind every choice is a reason, no matter how miniscule. You can choose the reasons that involve relinquishing your identity for the sake of others, or you can choose to think and act independently and reach your life’s potential, because no one has a better chance to do it than you.
-Cage
Gabriel's Blog 