YTP has written and rewritten a post on the relationship between individuality and politics for some time now, with little success at articulating the point well. In my defense, it did take Samuel Huntington an entire book to offer his take on it. Civilization, culture, religion: these are complex issues that have to be parsed carefully. Sociology is the messiest of sciences.
Fortunately, someone with a lot more personal credibility beat me to the punch. “Anger in such circumstances is mostly an effect of the pent-up resentment bred of life in a society without any sort of freedom.” Canadian writer Salim Mansur’s article deals specifically with Islam, and Islam in Pakistan, but he makes a point applicable to several sitautions.
Personally, over the course of eight years of living and working in Asia, I saw this same anger whenever Confucianism, Islam, patriarchal societies, and farming collectivism ran up against the individualism bred by Buddhism (yes, Buddhism), Christianity, Western philosophy, capitalism, technology, and better income levels. While a lot of attention was and is given to the big Islam v. Christianity clash, I saw the same tension when philosophies/religions/cultures which emphasized the subjugation of the individual to unquestioned authority run up against their opposite. In other words, I saw the exact same tensions in communist Vietnam as I did in Islamic Indonesia. And I did not see those tensions in places where individualism is a critical part of the national character, as it is, for example, in Mongolia.
The above is not a new observation; however, the language used to refer to this phenomenon has been so removed of any context that it is kind of useless. The current administration identifies it as a need for spreading “freedom” and “democracy” throughout the world, and casts this need as a national security issue. I agree that the resentment bred in such situations is a national (and international) security issue. I am not sure that focusing on the idea of “spreading freedom” (see the 2002 National Security Strategy here: nss) is the best way to phrase it. Respect for the individual? The rights of the individual?
More complicated that just naming this need is avoiding the PC backlash that comes with any discussion of sociological and cultural traits. How can one measure one culture/society/religion and call it bad and another good? What is the standard? Why is productivity of labor a fair measure? Aren’t some peasants happier than some rich people? What about all the evil things Christianity has done in the past? All beliefs are equal, so isn’t criticizing one over another is a form of prejudice?
To this I say: live there. Live there. In these kinds of societies that place the authority of a few elite over the respect for the individual. Get your utilities set up. Apply for a driver’s license. Try to wear what you want to wear. Try to go where you want to go. Drink the water. Have a baby in the local hospital. Get a cold. Get in a traffic accident. Make friends. Talk to people. Learn the language. Discover its limits. Go to people’s homes. Ask questions. And then live there some more. Don’t visit. Stay. For years. Then move to another, similar place, and do it all over again.
Once you have done so, I am more than willing to enter into an angsty philosophical discussion about the evils and virtues of cultural relativism, colonial responsibility versus responsibility of the current state, and the great sins of the early Church.
Until then, I say: individualism? good. Crushing the individual? bad. Goal of nations and peoples who want peace? Find a way to defend and promote individualism; be prepared to get a lot of flak for it.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Your perspective reminds me a little of my brother who lived in China for 2 years. He was an English major here in the States and many of his counterparts and faculty championed communism. He shook his head at them and said they knew very little because they had never lived in a communist society.
You must log in to post a comment.