An excerpt from the new book
LIFE, LIBERTY, AND HAPPINESS
An Optimist Manifesto
by Frank S. Robinson
Published by Prometheus Books
and reprinted here with permission
ISBN: 1591024269
List Price: $28.00
LFB Price Only $17.50
You Save 38%!
Life, Liberty, and Happiness is the winner of the July 2006 Lysander Spooner Award for Advancing
the Literature of Liberty. For more information about the Lysander
Spooner Awards, CLICK HERE.
To go to our full review, or to go to purchase the book, CLICK HERE.
The excerpt, below, is Chapter 14 of the book, Life, Liberty, and Happiness. Enjoy!
_______________________________________________
LIFE, LIBERTY, AND HAPPINESS
An Optimist Manifesto
by Frank S. Robinson
CHAPTER 14:
INDIVIDUALISM AND SOCIETY
The previous chapter referred to the primacy of the individual as central to a positive vision of society. This merits a little more attention. Some people actually lament the advance of individualism.88 They see it as a bad thing, inimical to societal cohesion and welfare, as though society and its members are somehow natural enemies.
Differing cultures have varied attitudes about individualism. Some Eastern traditions exalt ideas of submission to a deity or to fate, acceptance of one's lot, subordination of the individual to family or collective interests, and even a sort of passivity. But the European or Western tradition, rooted in ancient Greek thought and augmented by Christianity, sees life as being most fully lived through positive rational action, as opposed to resignation or passivity. In the Eastern conception, nothing that happens in one person's mind can matter much; to Westerners, it matters a lot.
The latter seems more consonant with the reality of human nature. We are, at the most basic organic level, individuals. Our place in society is not analogous to that of the cells comprising our bodies, which have no meaningful existence apart from their role in the larger organism. Neither are we like computers hooked up to others forming a network. For such computers, as well as for cells, participation in the larger whole is nonconscious and nonvolitional, whereas we humans have our own motivations, thoughts, and feelings—a sense of self. All these mental phenomena make us self-centered in the literal sense. Everything we do is a response to, and a product of, what happens in our individual minds. Even our most social actions are the products of our individual minds. Thus, individualism is not something to which we can say yes or no, it is a fundamental fact of human existence89.
None of this would mean much if people were essentially all the same, like bees in a hive. They too are individuals in a narrow sense, but what's good for any one bee is equally good for another. Give them identical stimuli and they respond identically. People, of course, are not like that; they have differing characters, affinities, talents, wants, and desires. One-size-fits-all doesn't work for humans. Thus, again, individualism for us is not an option but a fact. And a desire to give expression to one's individuality seems virtually universal in the human character. We cherish our individual "specialness." We rebel at any idea that we're cookie-cutter products; and much though we do conform ourselves to social norms, because we want to fit in with our peers, we don't want to melt in with them. The word "conformist" is not a compliment but a put-down.
Further, because we do have individual consciousness, feelings, and motivations, what happens to us matters to us, and we naturally want to do something about it. This is why philosophies of passivity or annihilation of the self are ultimately ill fitting; it is basic to human nature to instead be proactive in working to enhance our conditions of life. This is, again, the Greek ideal of living through rational action. And for most of our history, we had to work very hard at doing just that in order to survive at all. Life was a tough challenge. Acceptance, resignation, or passivity were characteristics spelling doom for our ancestors and, hence, were weeded out of our genetic makeup by evolution.
And individualism is not in some way at odds with the interests or welfare of society. We participate in it as part of our striving to make the best lives we can. Society is the creation of individuals all rationally desiring its benefits and therefore willingly promoting its success. Moreover, society is better served by such proactive individualists, motivated to improve their own lives and move things forward, than by passive or submissive souls who don't believe in their own power. We don't want a society of drones. Most of our advancement in knowledge, science, and technology, such a boon for society, is the work of people who believed in themselves and followed individualistic visions. Such individuality also makes for a more vibrant, interesting, and stimulating culture, in contrast to one of bland gray uniformity. And in economic life, the free market's "invisible hand" makes self-serving individual action advance the common good too (something we'll revisit).
We must also never forget that society is not the end, but the means. Humans don't exist to serve society—it's the other way around. That is why we value society. It ultimately makes no sense to talk in terms of sacrificing individual interests for society's sake. If we must deny ourselves to serve society, instead of it serving us, then why even have it?
But that's not how it is. Society actually thrives in symbiosis with individual self-realization, not only in the materialistic ways already noted, but also because we are social creatures who are nourished and rewarded by our connections with others. Thus, participation in society and family life is a crucial part of our lives and happiness; indeed, the realization of individuality gains much of its value when it occurs within the context of membership in society and the family. Robinson Crusoe was free to be as individualistic as he pleased, but, being removed from society, that was of scant value to him. Society's paramount importance is that it provides us with the environment in which our individuality can flourish and be enjoyed. That, not any duty for self-sacrifice, is why society compels our allegiance and support, and that's why it's wrong to think in terms of subordinating ourselves to society.
Yet the idea of sacrificing individuals to larger social interests retains a strange allure. That was the basis of totalitarian systems. Likewise, leftist political theories regard people as basically just selfish; hence, these ideologies focus on schemes to coerce individuals into cooperating for the common good. It's ironic that their advocates see such nostrums as somehow promoting human values when they are bottomed on such a negative view of humanity. And it's an incorrect one. As emphasized before, our longtime history of struggling to survive required not only looking out for ourselves but also cooperation, and thus, cooperativeness and social consciousness became deeply embedded in human nature. We get rewards from social cooperation. We don't need to be frog-marched into it. And though people do help each other naturally, they also naturally resent compulsion, so trying to impose social cooperation by force is counterproductive. It does not enhance social cohesion,
but destroys it. Coercion—not individualism—sets man and society at odds.
This was seen in the collectivism of Soviet Russia and Maoist China, both of which aimed to enforce at gunpoint the ultimate in social cooperation, and thereby actually produced more of an "every man for himself" mentality and far less true social consciousness than in the individualistic West with its supposed culture of selfishness. In contrast to the West, public-spiritedness, personal social activism, community and neighborhood organizations, volunteerism, and charity were all virtually nonexistent in populations under communism.
Some, like Aldo Leopold, have even argued not just for subordinating individual concerns to society but for a "holism" in which the relevant collective is actually all of creation. This rejects the "atomism" of thinking in terms of individual value and rights, holding instead that people have meaning only as parts of a greater whole and not in themselves. This might sound very broad-minded. But we must ask, what is the value or virtue really being served? The biosphere—the god this philosophy worships—exists, but is not alive,90 has no consciousness or sentience, no thoughts, feelings, or desires. In this sense, "holism" is akin to worshipping a wooden idol—and sacrificing living beings to it.
It is only individuals that experience pain, joy, suffering, or love. Some animals also do (we'll return to that), but the inanimate, insensate biosphere does not. Of course, we must keep the biosphere healthy, as we cannot thrive otherwise. But, just as in the case of society, service to it is not the meaning and mission of human life. Holism has actually been labeled "environmental fascism"—the analog of political fascism, where the interests of the state supersede those of the individual (begging the question of what value the state then serves). And, just as fascism will sacrifice individuals to advance state interests, if we actually did similarly subordinate ourselves to the service of the biosphere, then it would be fine to kill people if that were necessary to protect some endangered species of weed. Would Aldo Leopold willingly have thrown himself on that pyre?
But in the last analysis, it is nonsensical and tautological to see individuals only as serving some greater collective or entity, since the only meaningful ultimate purpose to promoting such a collective—whether the state, the biosphere, or society—is for the sake of enabling sentient individuals to flourish. As suggested before, what does it matter if the universe even exists if there's no one to enjoy it?
We must also reject any idea that an individual has value only insofar as he serves some greater good. Again, that's tautological—putting the cart before the horse—because the greater good can be worth serving only if it somehow promotes the welfare of individuals. A person's value is to himself; we all value our own lives, and that's a bedrock human right. Thus, the value of each and every human life is axiomatic, inherent, and not contingent on anything outside that life—that is, "unalienable," meaning it cannot be taken away. Society has no right to judge the value of individuals91—or their lack of value. We have been down that road, and we know where it leads.
For most of our time on Earth, individualism was suppressed—by political, social, and economic structures, and by generally unforgiving conditions of life that required people to behave within narrow confines in order to get by. Only in modern times have all these constraints upon individualism been loosened for much of humanity. Only now can people be all they can be, and attain true self-realization. Only in our era have such human rights at last won a place under the sun.
The day of the individual has dawned. Sing hallelujah!
Footnotes:
88 The word "individuality" refers to the fact of differences among people.
"Individualism" concerns behaviors and attitudes. The word is used with very specific meanings
by certain philosophic doctrines, but it will be used here merely in the general sense of people
giving expression to their individuality.
89 This is what Margaret Thatcher meant in saying, "There is no such thing as
society"—human beings must properly be considered as individuals.
90 The "Gaia" idea of the planet as a living organism is a nice metaphor but certainly
not a literal reality.
91 Criminal justice is a special case, discussed later.
_____________________________________________
To go to our full review, or to go to purchase the book, CLICK HERE.
__________________________________________________
Reprinted with permission from the publisher of Life, Liberty, and Happiness by
Frank S. Robinson, Prometheus Books, © 2006.
CLICK HERE TO GO NOW TO PURCHASE BOOK
No comments:
Post a Comment