Individuality & The Greater Good
We could choose to begin this discussion with the Stanford Prison Experiment or the Reserve Police Battalion 101, or other such instances of individuals throwing off the shackles of potential scrutiny and punishment for the obscurement of collectivism, but I find the time necessary to explain those situations unnecessary to the overall function of this essay, especially when others before me have exhausted these examples ad infinitum. I will instead endeavor for something more in line with the brevity of my contemporaries rather than the lengthy droning of my predecessors, as to convey the meaning of this idea in as concise a manner as possible, for I feel the long form discussion and explanations have already taken place, and I don’t see the value in simply repeating those discussions here for clout. This idea, along with that of Freedom from an earlier essay, work in tandem as the bedrock of all great societies, where above all, the governments of those societies are in agreement that the citizenry therein have expressed a desire to be identified as the sole purveyors of their destinies, rather than a collection of blank identities with no true purpose other than to serve said government. But enough introduction, and into the substance.
In recent discussions with others whose opinions I value to the highest degree, I am struck by a desire from them to attribute excess power to motive, sometimes shifting their focus from the individual in the process. The natural inclination of those within my generation is to think within the confines of old ideas rather than innovate. The desire to stay within the boundaries of the tried and true, consume the low hanging fruit, to hike the straight and narrow path is something endemic to those from the technology boom era. I have been privy to the highlights of other’s thoughts when I push back against ideas, when I criticize, when I fight for my own, and I am met with defensiveness, and divisiveness, and sometimes even scorn. I am reminded in these interactions that no matter the elucidations of those who wish for greater safety, they would almost never sacrifice their own sanity for it. They may speak of wishes to create an easier world, but always take great strides to preserve their own freedom. They may wish for authoritarian comfort, but secretly revel in the idea of seditious libertarianism.
The reason I even give credence to these experiences stems from my understanding of simplicity within an increasingly complex world. There are so many interactions, interconnections, and exchanges within society and the world at large that I am often struck by the overwhelming scale of it. Even more surprising, then I could find any amount of myopia within, a narrow field of view in which everything must be filtered in the end. Every person, at the end of the day, no matter what, must put their head down and rest as an individual, no matter how much energy was expended by the civilization at large, no matter the order, no matter the chaos. I believe this simple truth is lost upon too many for the simple reason that only an individual can experience what that individual is capable of within their limited senses. For all the talk of empathy, it rings hollow in the reality of our abilities. The restrictions of our corporeal forms require us to make too many assumptions about the machinations of others, their thoughts, their feelings, their utility, and their possibility. This is precisely the point of this essay: to highlight the importance of understanding the role of individuality within a civilization that seeks to replace it with collectivism.
While I don’t prescribe myself so much to the skepticism of Hume, the assuredness of Kant or the nihilism of Nietzsche, I find myself looking for aphoristic truths in a society determined to destroy such a thing. Indeed, I believe there must be something that ties us to this world, something shared, and something tangible, as it were. I believe this is the most important truth to uncover, as it creates a shared bond, a common enemy upon which a battlefield can be determined. One of the key downfalls of any great society is the distraction of decadence that grows at an unsustainable rate, weakening the populace by removing a core understanding of what creates their world. Whether we would like to advertise it or not, even a country as wealthy and affluent (even amongst the ‘lower classes’) as the United States of America has suffered under the weight of our successes, with a great many people being so far removed from the processes and people that create their world they begin to demonize and distance themselves from such processes and people, pushing them farther and farther away from the sterile and depraved centralizations we’ve all come to herald as the crowning achievements of our modern lives. Perhaps even I am a pawn in that game, sitting here by dim light penning such useless thoughts while others are out extracting the wealth of our world for my benefit and losing life and limb in the exchange. And put simply, that’s all everything is: an exchange. There is nothing in the known universe that happens for free; not a star being born, a plant undergoing photosynthesis, a nuclear reaction taking place, or a human succumbing to their final trial. There are no free lunches.
And yet, modern society is hellbent on proving that can be the case, in a most spectacularly destructive fashion. There are those who would have us believe that by sacrificing our individual liberties we might gain a greater societal relevance, at the behest of a government (mind you, run by individuals) who would grant us such relevance. How pernicious! How ill-conceived! How evil must another be to convince his fellow man to surrender that freedom for the promise of something grander? I would argue there is nothing grander than the ability of self-reliance, of self-determination, of the idea of self. From the time we are born to the time we die; we can only know ourselves in a manner so intimate it must make God Himself ponder such exclusivity. For those of us that understand this relationship, we know never to surrender it unless no other recourse is available to us; even then, some would choose death or torture rather than the annihilation of the one aspect of the human experience that has no equal. I can confidently say the concept of the individual is so intrinsic within our station in life that any society with a goal of self-preservation and perpetuation identifies the need for both individual achievement as well as sovereignty. Let’s explore why this is, at least as briefly as the subject will allow.
There is a line within the Declaration of Independence which states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created Equal…” Ostensibly the most important part of this statement being that the ideas expressed within are self-evident, they are obvious, they are elementary (not true in my opinion, but perhaps another time). The critical balancing point here for the ideas is the equality aspect of humanity, that each person was created with the equality of creation itself and endowed with the ability and potential of their Creator, an idea many would consider quite elementary now, but at the time, was an incredibly bold and new idea, mostly for the reason of government structures, which up to that point in time generally had a king who ruled over subjects. This was the established order of things, with a clear hierarchy of importance and rights within a society. It wasn’t until much later in the 17th and 18th centuries, when these ideas began to be questioned quite vigorously. To make an incredibly verbose story rather terse (As I plan to explore this in future essays), the idea of Man having his own virtues, being equal in all parts to all others, is the focal point of all current societal structures. There can be no equality of a society without first recognizing the sovereignty of those that comprise said society.
How could a government ask of its citizens sacrifice and surrender if they are simply part of the collective? How would the call to action be heard? By the society writ large? Who has the ears to hear? What a foolish concept, I say. In fact, those who constantly sound the call for Equality (they may use Equity incorrectly as a substitute) while at the same time calling for more collectivist activity within their society are doing so in such a magnificently erroneous methodology it ought to become the subject of great mockery. These people often use the vituperative statements of every -ism in the known languages to decry their detractors in a vain effort to bolster their ideas beyond the engineered superstructure. Now, in fairness, the calls of collective action are merited in the way that we combine ourselves to make statements and effect change, or to use a different and more tangible analogy, one stick may break, but a bundle can form a foundation. But my meaning, not to be misunderstood, is the importance of the individual in said action. While we may have to band together for common cause, that is only because each person is willing and able to make such a determination. Imagine the idea of a worker’s rebellion, where the collective bargaining is made stronger by the number of people there, but those people could not choose such a display. Such a display would wither and die without the vigor of those there to supply it; the fire would snuff itself out for lack of fuel, for the fuel is damp with ennui. The issue here is not the collectivist mindset; rather the implied coercion that those individuals have no say in said action. Democracy, as it were.
Perhaps the reason I care so deeply about this topic stems from what I can see are patterns throughout history of an eternal struggle between those who want power above all else, and those who want self-determination above all else. Those that would use violence as an initial response to imagined slights, and those who refuse to use violence in defense of all they hold dear until it’s the last resort. The eternal struggle of man will always be mired by the indefensible and indefatigable desire of animalistic need. Human nature, for all its benefits and faults, can never be defeated. Once again, while I don’t prescribe myself fully to the philosophies of those who came before, I can only imagine how they must have viewed the world, perhaps in a time when technology and communication was more explicit in its function. We have spent the better part of this century endeavoring to create the most complex versions of everything around us, masquerading all the worst ideas in the frivolity of self-indulgence as if that absolves it of the danger and destruction. We would rather throw off the shackles of responsibility that comes with existence for public health than accept the fantastic obligation of ‘making-the-cut’, for lack of a better idiom. I find myself becoming more disillusioned every year with the general apathy of those around me rather than heartened by the possibility of strength, perhaps because we no longer value such a thing. We groom ourselves to ridiculous degrees, so far removed from hard work it has become relegated to the world of fantasy.
But to give heart to the downtrodden: There will always be a need for the recognition of the smallest unit with the cooperative. Never in the history of living beings has the incessant need for destruction of this fact never led to its eventual triumph, simply because it is an ultimate truth, a dam within the wide river which all water must flow through. Think of all the great movements in history, when the members of a society so sick with the vicissitudes of factions, squandering the liberty of this world, that they do not eventually cry out for the necessity of that liberty. When all the rights and functions of their society have been destroyed for the benefit of a simple few, the majority, with all the anger and frustration and recognition of sovereignty, will then fight for such a thing, and extol that virtue above all else, because the importance of their uniqueness is not a symptom of selfishness, but a by-product of human nature itself. Therefore, for those that would wish the individual dead, heed the warning of history: There can be no path towards perpetuation without autonomy.
Finis dicitur
G.S. Frank