In many blogs, sites, articles and so on, one tends to see a lot of opinions similar to the following: “oh, the relationship didn’t work out because he was too much an individualist!”. Or “people are way too individualistic these days, nobody cares about others”.
Apparently, people think of “an individualist” as “a manipulating, selfish, self-centered bastard who uses people and is incapable of caring about anyone”.
Which is quite a weird definition, because it doesn’t have anything to do with the word!
From Dictionary.com, an individualist is:
n.
1. One that asserts individuality by independence of thought and action.
2. An advocate of individualism.
Isn’t that quite different from the first definition? 
Individualism is the opposite of collectivism. Dictionary.com defines it as:
n.
The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.
and collectivist as:
adj : subscribing to the socialistic doctrine of ownership by the people collectively [syn: collectivistic, collectivized, collectivised, state-controlled] n : a person who belongs to the political left [syn: leftist, left-winger]
But that’s in the economical/political sense. On a more social and personal sense, collectivism puts the group above the individual. In other words, according to collectivism, every individual has a “duty” to sacrifice himself for the group if necessary. Furthermore, the group has the “right” to decide what the individual owes it – and also the right to decide to sacrifice that individual, if necessary.
Individualism means saying no! to that horror.
Individualism means believing that an individual has the right to live his own life as he sees fit, without sacrificing himself to others nor others to himself. That an individual has the right to pursue his own happiness, and that doing so is not only his right, but the moral thing to do – that he’s not being a “selfish evil bastard” because he does so.
Individualism is also about choice. It means that one is responsible for his own choices and actions – it’s not the fault (or the credit) of his skin color, his parents, his country of birth, his zodiac sign, his/her gender or the money he began with. Collectivism, on the other hand, says that it is those things that define a person, that choice (and thus personal responsibility) is an illusion – that one can’t be blamed for comitting a crime and can’t be praised for a great achievement, because both are “owed” to society.
An individualist can (and usually does) care about other people – but that’s the people he chooses to care about. Individualism has nothing to do with being able or unable, or willing or unwilling, to care about others. The point is that an invidualist cares and loves – or doesn’t – by choice, not duty.
An invidualist recognizes a hero as such, and a criminal as such. A collectivist would probably say that the criminal “just has a different, valid way of life” and/or “never really had a chance, he’s a victim of society, we all have responsibility in this matter”, and that the hero is guilty of making others feel “small and inadequate”, and that he was just lucky, was “dealt a better hand by fate” – and, thus, it is the criminal who deserves – and is owed – our help.
Guess which I choose to be.
No related posts.
Tags: definitions, individualism
Subscribe to this blog
As I read about Collectivism, 4 words came up: United States of America. And, on a national basis, three words: Bloco de Esquerda.
I believe criminals are to be punished and heroes to be rewarded. However, both must be given the chance to get back to doing “honest” work: no one wants a “recurring” criminal or a lazy hero.
I never thought of the United States of America as a colectivist society, much on the contrary. I must read further on this because I don’t think I have understood it.
That would be for another article.
But let me put it this way: socialism/collectivism + religious fanaticism + warmongering does not equal “right-wing” in its real meaning. It just equals the Bush administration. They, too, want a government controlling every aspect of people’s lives, restricting freedoms in the name of “national security”, redistributing wealth supposedly according to “need” or “fairness”, but in reality according to favors and influence. They, too, speak of “sacrifice”. They, too, want the government to become bigger and bigger, with the power to make every kind of law, no matter how arbitrary, and no matter what the Constitution says.
True “right-wing” (if that term still applies) would be something like this, or this. Individual rights, including the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, as the founding fathers of the USA wrote – very wisely, too. And a non-intruding, minimalistic government, who does not attempt to legislate morality or ensure “fairness” by taking from those who work and produce to give to those who don’t.
Anyway, this is all offtopic. This article was about how many people speak (badly) of “individualism” without having the slightest idea of what it means.
I’ve never seen an individualist as “a manipulating, selfish, self-centered bastard who uses people and is incapable of caring about anyone”.
However I must admit I still have the notion that individualists think mainly about themselves and don’t care about others. It’s not about using people. You can be friends with someone, get along well with people but not being really concerned or sympathetic about their problems or their welfare because you think it doesn’t have anything to do with you.
An individualist is not necessarily a selfish person – I agree with that.
Anyway the presented definition by you is very logical. It makes sense. However I never thought extremes were good or healthy be them individualists or colectivists.
As for the USA I still don’t think they’re a colectivist society though Bush’s administration may be one.
I still think of colectivism as an utopia for a socialist / communist society and the foundations of it have always fascinated me. In its basis the dream of communism was in fact a good one, a shame it couldn’t work. Have you ever seen Goodbye Lenin? If not, please do it soon.
I still think of colectivism as an utopia for a socialist / communist society and the foundations of it have always fascinated me. In its basis the dream of communism was in fact a good one, a shame it couldn’t work.
It would probably work for ants or ant-like beings. Yet even those… have you seen the AMAZING movie “AntZ”? It’s one of the best hymns to individualism I’ve ever seen.
Have you ever seen Goodbye Lenin? If not, please do it soon.
Isn’t that the one where they have to hide the fact that the Berlin Wall has fallen and there’s no longer a Communist East Germany to a woman who came out of a coma? I saw the trailer, looked nice…
have you seen the AMAZING movie “AntZ”? It’s one of the best hymns to individualism I’ve ever seen.
I saw Antz but not from the individualistic perspective! LOL
Isn’t that the one where they have to hide the fact that the Berlin Wall has fallen and there’s no longer a Communist East Germany to a woman who came out of a coma? I saw the trailer, looked nice…
Yes, that’s the one. You MUST see it.
I truly believe you’re going to enjoy it.
Some random quotes from that movie:
Z: “I’m supposed to do everything for the colony? What about my needs?”
Barbatus: “Don’t make my mistake, kid. Don’t follow orders your whole life. Think for yourself.”
General Mandible: “Sacrifice. To some, it is just a word. To others, it is a code.”
Z: “The whole system makes me feel… insignificant.”
Psychologist: “Excellent. You’ve made a real breakthrough.”
Z: “I have?”
Psychologist: “Yes, Z. You ARE insignificant.”