Individualism

Currently reading:
Beginning Latin Poetry Reader
   by Gavin Betts & Daniel Franklin

I just finished watching Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer, and was struck by the continuity in the theme of the ugly duckling in American culture. From the time of Rudolph in the 60s, to Happy Feet and Ratatouille today, we have celebrated the misfit who overcomes the odds and saves the day. But why must we keep giving the message? There must be a market for it, or else it would have fallen out of use. However, we still need to remind people that those who march to the beat of a different drummer are not the devil incarnate. Even in a culture which celebrates individualism, we become a herd of "individualists," committed to being unique in the same way as everyone else.

In most cases, this struggle is portrayed as one in which the lonely individual is the hero, and society is simply morally deficient. And it is hard to disagree with this assessment. It is hard to disagree with Nietzsche in declaring most people to be part of the slave mentality, even apart from his association of this with Christianity. Kierkegaard's assessment of those who live at the aesthetic level, the level of living life beautifully in the moment without ever making any real decisions, is woefully accurate. Confucius struggled with finding any rulers, or even many people period, who would seek more than their own glory to work toward the betterment of the Chinese society. Socrates was condemned by the majority, and let us not forget the mob chanting "Crucify!" at the trial of Jesus. This is without even getting into the atrocities committed for racial reasons. It seems to be just plain wrong to go with the flow, in all times, in all places.

But surely this can't be the entire story. Even if we admit that people are sinful, there seems to be some instinct hard-wired into some people to be primarily a part of the community. Why would God create this desire for communal harmony in us if we were all called to deny it? Can everyone spend the time seeking the truth for oneself, without substantial help and simple trust in others?

Kant, in his Conflict of the Faculties, lays out the situation as follows: There were three higher subjects (faculties) in his day, Theology, Law, and Medicine. The doctors would never be able to get around to healing anyone if they had to always go back and reassess their medical knowledge. Similarly, the judges could never hand down a verdict in a case if they had to question the validity of every law which passed their way, and theology could never get underway if the theologians had to constantly turn back to prolegomena and the results of historical studies for Scripture. On the other hand, we need philosophers who question these results, who keep the conversations open. We should not close down the questions entirely, but concern with the theory keeps us from practical results. If we require everyone to go against the herd instinct, to go his or her own way, then society would collapse.

Which leaves us in the following dilemma: we need society in order to carry on our lives, and society needs firm structures in place in order to function. These structures, however, will marginalize and commit violence against some people in the society. Further, in practice the society often goes astray, leading to the necessity of individuals going against said society. New movements will begin, only to fall back into the same problems as the necessity arises for a societal order (cf. almost any religious movement which promises freedom from the old way of life), and committing the same sins.

So, in the end, we can either give standards which will burden those who do the work in society, or we can fall victim to institutional sin. We can be Pharisees or publicans, but how hard it is to walk as Jesus walked! Gentleness leads to inaction and strength to violence, and how difficult it is to traverse the middle path.