Unity vs. Induvidualism
 

Unity vs. Induvidualism.

Let's assume, initially at least, that these concepts are not polar opposites. By that, I mean, they are not to be taken literally... 'Unity' does not mean a literal 'hive-mind', and 'induvidualism' is not a complete detachment from society.

But opposing concepts they are. Which do you find more appealing?

When a group shares a degree of peace and happiness (but possibly less freedom in princeple) becuase they are figurativly of 'one mind' on important subjects?

Or when you have more apparent 'freedom' (but possibly more conflict) in a group where belifes are diverse and contrary?

We can take this down a extremist route later on (Borg-style hive minds etc), but I'd like to keep it pragmatic and applicable for the first couple pages at least....

I'm more of an individualist, I prefer relying on myself.

Which is odd, because scientists are supposed to be unified, and share their discoveries and creations, right?

But I know other people fail me, and that I fail other people, therefore, to cut that to a minimum, I try to get on by myself as much as possible.

I think this is the exact debate that is kind of needlessly polarising humanity on basically every issue conceivable. It's the false dichotomy to end all false dichotomies.

I think the real situation is that they complement each other, and indeed, rely on each other. A union is made up of individuals, individuals work together to make a union. What is the crux of so many philosophical questions, or even political ones, but the rights of the individual vs. the majority? Surely, in some cases, a delineation is necessary, but we often forget the importance of the individual in comprising the majority.

So, both are important. But I would say as humanity is a species, and society is a group and all but a select few live in complete solitude, the majority, the union (unity), the greater population, nay, all the population is "more" important. Only in the sense of collaboration, though--it's Utilitarianism. The pragmatic needs of 1,000 surpass those of 1. What's difficult is creating situations in order to appease a variety of different situations while still retaining an overall general sense of happiness. So this 1 is hardly irrelevant. Indeed, it's important to remember that this 1,000 is made up of 1s.

I also think there is far too much factionalism in the world, even in primitive social equations. Connecting with people, meeting new people, forging relationships; these are the lifeblood of society and understanding. By relying on oneself, one is truncating and deliberately handicapping ones scope and view of the world.

I second that. This arguement just screams 'unrealistically complex,' and the idea of these two being separate...well...I just can't get how they can possibly exist in isolation, even enough to pick a preference.

Compromise, essentially? To make connecections, to construct relationships... The 'induvidual' attributes are nessecery, and unity is the result.

I'm inclined to agree. I think of, perhaps, an induvidual who's egotism perpetuates an elevated, erronious, sense of self-importance. Removed of society, however ('fans', other types of support) such a person understands the importance of 'others' - the whole.

...Aaaand basically I just summarized the plot to PIXAR's latest film. Oh, Anthropomorphic automobiles, what wholesome life-lessons you teach us.

Given the current world-scene though... Are we moving towards, or away from 'unity'? Insular is a buzzword for me that seems to represent a common attitude - self-importance.

A unified society made up of individuals.

Wouldn't that be great? Sadly it often seems like only one of the two is possibly. In which case I would go with individualism, since a group of people "too" unified, as you would, can be more easily manipulated than a single individual, mostly due to group preassure.

I dunno, it seems like society gets easier to manipulate the more atomized it becomes. I would think a well-bonded group would be more able to reject and react against negative pressure than any lone individual could.

That is certainly another way of seeing it. But if said well-bonded group COULD be manipulated to think a certain way? This wouldn't necessarrily require too much; it could very well be enough to just get the "leader" or certain key figures of the group "on your side".

There are a lot of psychological explanations and terms about what can happen if a group gets too tight. Deindivituation for example, the name sould pretty much say the main thing about it.

Of course, individualism also has it setbacks.

The Milligram experiment that locke posted a link to in another thread suggests that the likelyhood of that really relies on whether or not a peer group is applying the pressure or rather just a peer. There seems to be a predisposition to group, as locke said, hoewever the individualist spirit seems to come though as well. I have always said, that snowflakes are all different, yet they all have to work together to create a blizzard.
I think that is what locke may have been getting at. To use a different Metaphor.
These values seem intertwined.

It just so happens that this topic brushes against an interest of mine, a current research project I am embroiled in regarding globalization. So, I will post my thoughts on a phenomena (or claimed phenomena, some people still contest the existance of globalization as anything more than an analytical artifact.) that takes the concept of individualism vs. unity and applies it to a real world situation.

The real world situation one might say.

The definitions of globalization are rather subjective, there are a lot of very smart people with an awful lot of friends on either side of the argument, so depending on who you talk to you might get a different answer.

A globalist might define globalization as the increased interdependence of national entities and a higher volume of commerce in all socially pertinent factors: economic, cultural, media, governmental and so forth.

An anti-globalist (something of a misnomer according to myself and many other people who could be numbered amongst the anti-globalist movement themselves) might call the phenomena "corporate globalization" or "global corporatization." (funny places to put their 'izations eh?). They would characterize it as a movement initiated by the economic elite to control and subjugate developing nations and the general "working class", denying labor rights and eroding the sovereignity of nations in order to promulgate an almost atavistic ruthlessness in global commerce.

So who is right? Where do the lines of individual rights and global concerns and prosperity fall and blur?

As far as my understanding goes (which may very well be not so far...) there are many seperate avenues in which a person, city or nation can determine their individualism. We tend to want to simplify matters by universally accepting a dichotomy of ideals, one right and one wrong. This is never the case however.

In terms of individualism from a personal perspective (ie.: that of an individual, not from my own) I think the distinction between individualism and globalism (ideology of unity could supplant that term) is pretty cut and dry. Do I desire personal gain or furtherance of a community?

The real complexity comes into play when a community is compared to other communities of equivalent scope. When the world community is considered, individualism becomes harder to defend or accuse.

-Is cultural identity something sacrosanct that should not be molested by outside powers?

-Is a laissez-faire capitalist attitude the best vehicle for international commerce, or should individualism of nation-states be preserved at all costs?

-Does the increased economic power of international corporations threaten the individualism of developing nations and force them to acquiesce to unfair labor practices?

-What will or could be the impact of a standardized global ideology? What are the pros and cons of the modern ideoscape's trend towards unity?

These questions and many more immediately present themselves to my mind. As well as possible answers and global troubles that could and are arising because of them. One particuarly pertinent example is the current actions of the United States in the Middle East.

The war against Iraq is seen by many to be an exercise in globalization and imperialism. Globalization is by definition somewhat imperialistic, however the theory of an economic elite manipulating government policy to achieve economic goals through sanctioned force leads many to lie awake at night in cold sweats.

To put it another way, the actions of a nation heavily involved in globalization (ie.: a trend toward unity) are suspect to misinterpretation by outside observers. Even if the Iraqi war is completely altruistic in motivation, it has all the fingerprints of corporate entities becoming more powerful than social ones. America the great headless beast provoked ever onward by the insidious tendrils of selfish corporate entities that seek a destruction of barriers, both cultural and national.

just some food for thought.