IB Prized Writing Sevenoaks School IB Prized Writing 2014 | Page 217

Emma Rixhon - Philosophy To what extent are acts of individual rebellion necessary for social progress? they belong to and its willingness to progress. This means that the specific progress the rebel is hoping to attain must already be a concern of the society they belong to in order for the rebellion to be successful. If individual acts of rebellion do not directly result in social progress, and they require a certain prior acceptance from their society, then it is impossible to say that they are either necessary or sufficient for social progress. The most that can be confidently said of these acts is that they are catalysts for social improvement. However, individuality or a sense of identity other than solely being a functioning part of society must be present for one to bring about social progress. The implication of this conclusion is that what is necessary for development is not individual acts of rebellion rather than a prominent sense of self-worth in individual members of society. Nevertheless,  according  to  Rousseau’s  General  Will  “a  sense  of  common   interest” 23 is necessary for the development of society as it facilitates the government  to  act  for  the  good  of  “the  community  of  citizens” 24 . In this way, a society of herd-men is positive as it enables the government to further their development in a way which supports the grand majority of people. This is only possible in a population which has conformists desiring the same goals for their society, and therefore may be an adequate counter-argument for individualism, where governments are struggling to satisfy multiple  individuals’  demands  for   progress. Kierkegaard,  however,  refutes  this  concept  by  declaring  that  “the   crowd  is  untruth” 25 , meaning that individual truthful thought can only be true in its individuality. As soon as truth is brought into a group, even by individuals who  each  “possess  the  truth  in  private”, 26 it is turned into untruth by giving the inauthenticity of collaboration importance. This would mean that social change brought about in any way other than individual rebellion would be inauthentic, as it would be fuelled by “untruth”. Furthermore, this suggests that progress, possibly getting closer to the truth, needs to be an organic process individually Foisneau, L. 2010 ibid. 25 Kierkegaard, S. 26 ibid. 23 24 216 13