What's Wrong with Individualism?

[smndtupidisaftr]

My understanding is that individualism is the idea that action originates in individuals. That is contrasted with the idea of socialists that the basis of action is society. I would think, then, that individualism is more in line with Church teaching. Why then, do I constantly hear arguments against both of these? I know socialism takes on other definitions, but is individualism also tied up with other things?

 

[Bill_7154]

Do some people actually want a world filled with ‘Stepford Christians’?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

We can fall into error by either over-emphasizing or under-emphasizing the unity of any level of human society. In the United States today the main problem is an under-emphasis of community, and so you will see criticisms of individualism from Catholics. In a country like China you might see the opposite.

 

[Garyjohn2]

Individualism can take on other definitions.

Define: Individualism

• a (1) : a doctrine that the interests of the individual are or ought to be ethically paramount; also : conduct guided by such a doctrine *

Definearamount

• More important than anything else; supreme.
  Having supreme power.*

So, the individual is more important that the society. Yourself is more important than others. This doesn’t sound like church teaching to me.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Individualism can take on other definitions.

Define: Individualism

• a (1) : a doctrine that the interests of the individual are or ought to be ethically paramount; also : conduct guided by such a doctrine *

Definearamount

• More important than anything else; supreme.
  Having supreme power.*

So, the individual is more important that the society. Yourself is more important than others. This doesn’t sound like church teaching to me.

Well, in this case it depends on interpretation. If it means “my personal interests take precedence over anyone else’s” obviously that is not consistent with Christian morality. But if it’s “society only has value because of the value of the individual human person” then it is very much in keeping with Catholic teaching.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

My understanding is that individualism is the idea that action originates in individuals. That is contrasted with the idea of socialists that the basis of action is society. I would think, then, that individualism is more in line with Church teaching. Why then, do I constantly hear arguments against both of these? I know socialism takes on other definitions, but is individualism also tied up with other things?

I think you would have to be much more specific before you heard much argument against individualism.

The primary individualistic things that I hear argued against are the ideas that each individual is his own standard for good and bad, true and false; and that each individual should pursue his own good independently to the possible detriment of others or of society.

Now, if you just mean by individualism that the rights of the individual are important and can’t be violated, or that there should be a limit to the amount of coercion used by groups on individuals for group benefit, then yeah. That’s fine. It’s not all, of course - for example the individual should not harm society for his own benefit, but it’s fine so far as it goes.

But the definition you gave, the idea that “action originates in the individual” doesn’t really seem to be something that anyone would argue with. We do make our own choices and so what we decide to do, yes. The arguments only show up when we start trying to label things good or bad based on that.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

So, the individual is more important that the society. Yourself is more important than others. This doesn’t sound like church teaching to me.

As someone else pointed out, not everyone defines individualism as the same brand of Ayn Rand. For myself, I define it as emphasizing my right to exercise my freedom and affirm Church teaching that this right stems from each of use being made in the unique image and likeness of the Divine Creator. Each of us has inherent dignity that indeed forms the basis of society’s dignity, not the other way around.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think that any attempt to frame the discussion as “individual vs. society” is bound to lead people in the wrong direction.

Yes, we are individuals with our own individual identity. (I think this is part of what is attractive about Christianity compared to other religious traditions where we become but an indistinguishable drop in the cosmic ocean after we die.) We also have our own individual responsibilities.

But we are also social creatures. “No man is an island” as it were. We are all part of the Mystical Body of Christ, all part of the same human family. If that were not the case, Christ’s salvific work could not be applied to us. Then we’d be in trouble. We have obligations to each other. We cannot just check out of life, stay at home all day, never interact with anyone else, and then claim to be living an authentic Christian life.

Anything taken to the extreme is going to be bad. Socialism taken to the extreme is harmful. Individualism taken to the extreme is also harmful.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Socialism is harmful, period.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

I think you would have to be much more specific before you heard much argument against individualism.

The primary individualistic things that I hear argued against are the ideas that each individual is his own standard for good and bad, true and false; and that each individual should pursue his own good independently to the possible detriment of others or of society.

That sounds like subjectivism though, possibly even utilitarianism.

Now, if you just mean by individualism that the rights of the individual are important and can’t be violated, or that there should be a limit to the amount of coercion used by groups on individuals for group benefit, then yeah. That’s fine. It’s not all, of course - for example the individual should not harm society for his own benefit, but it’s fine so far as it goes.

I’m not denying the importance of society, only saying that ultimately it is the individual that chooses to act.

But the definition you gave, the idea that “action originates in the individual” doesn’t really seem to be something that anyone would argue with. We do make our own choices and so what we decide to do, yes. The arguments only show up when we start trying to label things good or bad based on that.

That’s what I take individualism to mean. Marxists deny free well and state that only society acts, not individuals.

 

[KP3243]

My understanding is that individualism is the idea that action originates in individuals. That is contrasted with the idea of socialists that the basis of action is society. I would think, then, that individualism is more in line with Church teaching. Why then, do I constantly hear arguments against both of these? I know socialism takes on other definitions, but is individualism also tied up with other things?

God made us all different for a reason. He uses our individual talents to do His will here on earth. The problem is when people aren’t doing His will Or doing something contradictory to things in His Church. Discerning what He has intended for you to do isn’t always so easy considering God permits our free will and we come to the idea table with our own set of wants, desires, opinions and bias. It takes a lot of prayer and discernment to figure out who exactly God intended each of us to be and how we are supposed to serve Him.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

That sounds like subjectivism though, possibly even utilitarianism.

I’m not denying the importance of society, only saying that ultimately it is the individual that chooses to act.

The term “individualism” is often used in such a way as to include these things that you don’t hold.

That’s what I take individualism to mean. Marxists deny free well and state that only society acts, not individuals.

Then what you call individualism is not a problem.

 

[migueltojose]

My understanding is that individualism is the idea that action originates in individuals. That is contrasted with the idea of socialists that the basis of action is society. I would think, then, that individualism is more in line with Church teaching. Why then, do I constantly hear arguments against both of these? I know socialism takes on other definitions, but is individualism also tied up with other things?

Until Judaism, the tribe ruled. Conformity was necessary for survival. Judaism tolerated and eventually encouraged individualism while maintaining a certain amount of social control. It’s one of their greatest gifts to the world.

I agree with some previous posters that the pendulum has swung pretty far past the midpoint on this in the US and needs to be brought back in.

Birds of a feather flock together balances individualism. Both are necessary. and good.

In a tribal environment non-conformists were ostracised. There are advantages and disadvantages. When there was less mobility, larger families, extended families, behavior within the family and therefore communities was tolerated within a range of an acceptable norm. There was much less unacceptable bad behavior. With smaller, broken, divided, “modern” families, the role models are lost and the social control is lost.

Unintended consequences… gets us again…

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Until Judaism, the tribe ruled. Conformity was necessary for survival. Judaism tolerated and eventually encouraged individualism while maintaining a certain amount of social control. It’s one of their greatest gifts to the world.

I agree with some previous posters that the pendulum has swung pretty far past the midpoint on this in the US and needs to be brought back in.

Birds of a feather flock together balances individualism. Both are necessary. and good.

In a tribal environment non-conformists were ostracised. There are advantages and disadvantages. When there was less mobility, larger families, extended families, behavior within the family and therefore communities was tolerated within a range of an acceptable norm. There was much less unacceptable bad behavior. With smaller, broken, divided, “modern” families, the role models are lost and the social control is lost.

Unintended consequences… gets us again…

I’m surprised at this description of Judaism. I’ve generally thought of ancient Israel as having had an extremely tribal social structure. Could you elaborate on how they developed a relatively more individualist society compared to the cultures that surrounded them?

 

[migueltojose]

I’m surprised at this description of Judaism. I’ve generally thought of ancient Israel as having had an extremely tribal social structure. Could you elaborate on how they developed a relatively more individualist society compared to the cultures that surrounded them?

acton.org/research/history-freedom-antiquity

Here is an article I found looking into it. It supports more of the influence coming from Greece (Plato, Socrates, Aristotle) and the surrounding areas including what is now Israel/Lebanon/Jordan etc. I make the leap from there to the Jews (who became the first Christians) based on their proximity and assimilation of other cultures influences (they were always so smart) and the fact that they had real heroes like David (not mythological gods to be their hero’s but real people) who defended their freedom and independence from opressors. It’s a bit of a stretch but I think it works.

Historically Jews were always in trouble with the state because they just wouldn’t be subjugated all the way from Moses to David to Hitler. I would throw Jesus in there but I don’t want to politicize him as his good news transcends petty politics. Jews had a knack of being very successful (and remainimg tight) in any country or culture they exist in (doctors, lawyers, BANKERS, musicians, entertainers, etc) and often this leads to social issues and unwelcomed scrutiny from the state.

The balance between individual freedom and liberty and Government (control/order) is similar to the the question of balance between free will and fate. What would Jesus say? Yes… both… I think…

If we are responsible, moral, reasoned and intelligent we should be able to have both That’s a big if… it’ll happen…

 

[YKohen]

From a traditional, Orthodox Jewish perspective, Hillel said (Ethics of the Fathers 1:14):
…If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I?..
One must find the proper balance between oneself- the individual, and one’s community. Too muchof one side at the expense of the other isn’t healthy for the individual or society.

 

[Bill_7154]

My understanding is that individualism is the idea that action originates in individuals. That is contrasted with the idea of socialists that the basis of action is society. I would think, then, that individualism is more in line with Church teaching. Why then, do I constantly hear arguments against both of these? I know socialism takes on other definitions, but is individualism also tied up with other things?

Society is made up of individuals, only individuals act IMNSHO.

 

[migueltojose]

From a traditional, Orthodox Jewish perspective, Hillel said (Ethics of the Fathers 1:14):
…If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I?..
One must find the proper balance between oneself- the individual, and one’s community. Too muchof one side at the expense of the other isn’t healthy for the individual or society.

Thanks - I’ve been reading up on him. Pretty cool dude… ol’ Hillel was…

 

[aragonjohn1]

My understanding is that individualism is the idea that action originates in individuals. That is contrasted with the idea of socialists that the basis of action is society. I would think, then, that individualism is more in line with Church teaching. Why then, do I constantly hear arguments against both of these? I know socialism takes on other definitions, but is individualism also tied up with other things?

That is because the Catholic Church believes in the inherent dignity and purpose of every individual. How that relates to individualism I recomend reading a papal encyclical on the rights of the the worker or modernism.

Hope this helps

Shalom
God bless You

 

[Robert_Sock]

Individualism is really an illusion. God is in us all, and He is unifying factor that connects us all.