It is this argument that now underpins the attack on individualism. Claiming that people can’t understand themselves, let alone be able to make or act properly on independent decisions, critics of individualism argue people live under a sense of false consciousness; and, to overcome this illusion of independence, the same critics argue people must turn to the group – to relations with others – to present alternative realities that more appropriately reflect the human condition. It is this position and argument that also underpins what has come to be known as the “culture wars,” with some people actually calling for and/or declaring the “end of individualism.”
We have, or course, heard calls declaring the “end” of something for decades. Daniel Bell predicted, for example, the “end of ideology” in the 1960s, arguing older, grand-humanistic ideologies derived from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had been exhausted and that new, more parochial ideologies would soon arise. Theodore J. Lowi predicted the “end of liberalism” in the 1970s, arguing classical liberalism and capitalism had died and been replaced by interest group liberalism – which he further argued needed to be ‘replaced by a juridical democracy in order to restore the rule of law.’ Francis Fukuyama predicted the “end of history” in the 1990s, arguing humanity had reached ‘not just ... the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end-point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.’1 And, for the most part, such “endings” never materialized, have been redefined, or have been pushed off.
But might this time be different? This time the call is that individuals are not necessarily distinct and should not be regarded as the center of legitimate thinking and acting. That would, would it not, effectively kill the ‘juridical’ person – which is why critics engage the rhetoric that suggests such moves are meant to silence individuals. People claim such advocates, by denying people their voice, are not embracing a new history but endorsing old authoritarian trends. Taken together, the overall environment becomes defined through animosity, divisiveness, anger, and revenge as one accuses the other of racism, woke-ism, bullying, silencing, cancelling, etc.
Given the mission of this magazine, promoting the notion that all people are possessed of dignity and have a right to live a dignified human existence, the question must be asked: might the concept of dignity and answering where dignity resides help us through this morass to find common ground between individualism, groups, and/or collectivism?
Individualism
Individualism is generally defined as a theory or practice that emphasizes individual thought and action. In terms of philosophy, individualism becomes understood as a doctrine or belief that only individual things are real and/or “that all actions are determined by, or at least take place for, the benefit of the individual, not of society as a whole.”2 For this reason, individualism is often thought of as "a worldview that sees freedom of thought and action for each person as the most important quality of a society, rather than shared effort and responsibility.”3 Moreover, as a social theory, it suggests that individual liberty, rights, and independent action should be promoted over other considerations.
Historical Origins
The origin of individualism is often tied to the eighteenth century, when individuals used their reason to break from the shackles of religious repression. But it evolved in a much more complex environment, with different regions taking on differing variations.
For example, in England, individualism ‘encompassed religious nonconformity and economic liberalism;’ in France, individualism was used to ‘signify the sources of social dissolution and anarchy and the elevation of individual interests above those of the collective;’ in Germany, individualism was
10