A
REFLECTION ON INDIVIDUALISM
by
Jan Vis, creative
philosopher
former
chairman of the Dutch freethinkers
Since the philosophy is not there for a
few privileged, but for all people, is the quote from the article simply
allowed. Sources, however,
is appreciated. (Jan Vis, creative
philosopher)
Terug naar: STARTPAGINA
In general there is not much
appreciation of the current increase of individualism. It is considered as a
loss of solidarity and as such a serious danger for the society. The opinion is
that it will conduct to more poverty for the people, due to the unrestrained
gathering of wealth by a constantly growing upperclass.
One speaks of a dichotomy of manhood. But the question is if on the long run
this is indeed a real expectation.
I think it is usefull to
give, broadly speaking, a philosophical description of the development of
individualism from the classical antiquity till modern times. It must be
understood as a 'philosophical' survey because of the chosen point of
departure. Its essential idea is that man is by no means programmed as a social
being, like nearly all the politicians and even the philosophers claim. The
reason is that man is in all respects an absolute soloist, without any program
that is impressed by nature. So, a program to force him to act as a social
creature is also completely absent. His behaviour is not predetermined and it
is always possible that he suddenly acts on a fully unexpected way. In
principle he is absolutely free.
The entire animal world is bounded by the rules of the
evolution, but man is free from every slavery to the laws of nature. He is able
to say 'no' to everything, including to his own existence. Of course he cannot
escape from his material origin, but that is of no importance. His freedom
concerns the decisions he makes. It is a kind of intellectual freedom.
The cause of this exclusive position is that he finds
himself at the absolute end of the evolution. He is an explicit borderline case
and that means that he has a dual nature. That gives him the possibility to
deny the laws and programs of the whole world of phenomenon’s. And, more than
that: his real existence is in fact a continuous surpassing above the natural
and material world. Consequently he acts exclusively in accordance with his own
free will, whether or not he is aware of that.
Mostly one doesn’t know anything about this absolute
freedom. In general the opinion is that everyone is, one way or another,
dependent on divine authorities, the laws of nature and the power of
high-placed other people. So most people believe that basically there is no
freedom at all. This opinion is based upon several inescapable situations in
daily life, but those situations are not relevant because they are incidental.
Always the possibility remains that one says 'no, irrespective of the
consequences. That is the crucial point. Since man is absolutely free of every
form of restraint it speaks voor itself that he also
cannot be any kind of social being. In principle man has nothing to do with his
fellow human beings or other creatures. That means that he is pure an individualist
who goes his own way. He only lives for himself and for nothing else.
However, to nearly everybody it does appear as if the
meaning of life lies in being important and useful to his fellow man, his
family, his country and so on. Being honest everybody has to admit that taking
care of a good relation to their fellow men is without any doubt a form of se1frealisation.
Being good to another gives a good feeling and makes one satisfied. And above
all: it is one's own free decision how to live with his fellow-man.
Right from the beginning of human life on our planet
man tries to realize himself as a free and independent being, as an unique
individual. He acts like an individualist, going his own way even when he
decides to be a faithful member of a social group. The whole history of mankind
shows this strive for self-determination. Never you see the will to merge into
a name1ess and non-personal collective, accepted that such rigid collectives
can exist. Always man tries to brake out of anonymous social systems. But, not
always this takes place in the same way. There are several periods in which
this development presents itself in completely different ways. With that the
question how self-aware man is in a certain culture plays a very important
role. In ancient times one had a totally different conception of individualism
than, for example, at the time of the French Revolution. And the modern view on
individualism dates from half the 19th century, when the large-scale industrial
economy started in the western world. In this modern conception the most
important factor is the collectivity, formed by the
citizens of a state, the members of a union or some other association. Then the
collectivity is in fact the only existing reality and
every individual has to submit himse1fto it. Personality is allowed, but only
within the context of the group.
You can see that in the collectivistic way of thinking
the individual is deduced from the group. He is the smallest unity of it. That means
that his total personality is a derivation of the self-awareness of the group.
And it means also that being social is considered as a natural quality of man.
But, like I said before: that is a fully untenable idea of the human reality.
In ancient times there was but one individualist and
that was the sovereign. Only he had the right to be absolutely himse1fand of
course it meant also that he was a totally free individual. Of course he was
also free to determine about life and death of his subjects, who only formed
the underground for his existence. It sounds crazy, but those subjects didn’t
have the slightest need to resist against their dependent position. They were
happy with the feeling of being a part of the sovereign's individuality, of his
glorious existence. And that meant also being a member of a divine whole.
The people was the material of the building of the
ancient monarchy. As such there was no cultural difference between the people,
they were all equals. Cultural equals of course, for in practice there were big
social differences, exactly like in all times. It is inevitable that there also
was an elite of special representatives of the monarch and that a part of his
glory and power radiated upon them. So they also had the power and the right to
rule over their fellow men. But everything was done exclusively in the name of
the monarch.
Often the sovereign himself acted in the name of
something feminine, his mother for example. But that didn’t make him dependent.
He was still free and powerfull, because of the fact
that he counted as the complete content of that feminine principle. Such a
content was considered as an absolute power, an almighty and devine authority. Most of the ancient sovereigns claimed to
be gods and till nowadays you can remark
that kings and queens pretend to be from divine origin, or at least reign with
the grace of their gods. For example Louis XIV of France, the so-called Sun
King who lived from 1643 till 1715, declared himself divine and a lot of highplaced bootlickers confirmed it!
With the rise of the Roman Empire
the cultural development of man as an individual began. The most important
result of that process was the formulation of the Roman Law. It was not, as the
word 'Law' suggests, in the first place a collection of laws, but a system of
rights. When you speak of laws it means a system of strict orders from above,
with the absolute demand of obedience. There is, so to speak, a
one-way-traffic. But, when you speak of rights it handles about the relations
between individuals. That is not a one-way-traffic but a mutual recognition and
above that it is based upon a horizontal organisation of the society. When
there are rights there are inevitable equal rights. In theory that equal rights
concern everybody, for it is the individual that counts. But for a long time
not everybody is considered as an individual. Slaves for example were no
individuals in the eyes of the Romans and the same judgement concerned those
who didn’t have the Roman citizenship. In practice only Roman citizens were
supposed to be individuals and for them the Roman Law was valid. Yet this Roman
Law was a new moment in the process of individualisation. But it was only the
primitive beginning of a lengthy development. In fact this becoming aware of
man as individual is the essence of the western culture which in the end will
produce the real individualist. This individualist is the utmost result of the
western culture. Being an individualist man has reached his full maturity.
In history there is a causal connection between the
succession of events. Every historical period is a manifestation of a certain
idea and such an idea finds its origin in former development of ideas. Actually
the word 'idea' is not the good expression, because that concerns a rather
conscious knowledge. But in general men are hardly aware of the existence of
basic ideas in historical development. Therefore the word 'theme' is perhaps
better. But in fact it makes but a few difference. Also most scientist and philosophers
do not know anything about the realisation of cultural themes in history. Even
there are many historians who maintain categorical that there are absolutely no
special themes. They see history as a random succession of incidents without
any inner logic at allo That is a very stupid opinion
because it is obvious that the ideas of modem manhood are far more human than
those of, for example, the middle-ages. There is an undeniable progress in
cultural awareness. The philosopher Hegel (1770-1831) spook about the 'manifestation
of the Weltgeist' as a general basic proces of human spiritual development. Of course he didn’t
mean a real kind of spirit, but only the realisation of ideas!
That 'Weltgeist' shows in
the western culture the growing awareness of man as an individualist. That
means in fact the manifestation of man as a fully independent phenomenon. A
human being that lives exclusively for himself without any slavery to anything
outside or above him.
In spite of the fact that individualism as a process
of spiritual development is typical and essential for the western culture,
western man rejects it. He admits that one must be himself and also as free as
possible, it is true, but at the same time he is convinced that one has to
submit himself to higher realities like god, the state and the gouvernment. He finds himself a member of a bigger whole
and in that relation the first interest goes to that whole. The collectivity is the only reality. But on closer
consideration everybody can observe that in practice exc1usively the higher
levels of society proclaim the necessity of this subjection to the whole.
And that is understandable! This classes depend fully
on the compliance of the people with the laws of the whole to maintain their privileged
positions. So it is very usefull for them to make the
people believe in that submission as a case of real humanity. For themselves
they are nearly complete, but primitive, individualists who take every chance
to separate themselves from the ordinary people. So the resistance against
individualism has more of a fairy tale than of a reality. But, when you have a
look to the history of the western world you can see clearly that everything
moves in the direction of real human individualism.
For example the Reformation: it is true it was from
origin a religious movement to renew the organisation of the Roman Catholic
Church. But soon it appeared to be a movement of a great part of the western
world to replace the dependent position of the believers for an individual
relation to god. That was a moment of individualism. In accordance with the
Roman theology there must be an intermediary between man and god. For example
the 'Mother of God', Mary, has that function. But also the priests are
intermediaries. For the Roman Catholic belief a direct relation between man and
god is fully impossible. In fact this is a denial of man's individuality and at
the same time a confirmation of the authority and unreachable highness of god.
But in the 16th century man began to understand that everybody has his own
identity and by consequence a personal relation to god. That awareness became
manifest during the Reformation.
The French Revolution of 1795 and the American
Declaration of Independence are also examples of a further development to
individualism. From now on the citizens are recognized as individuals. The
slogan "Freedom, Equality and Fraternity" gives expression to that
new insight. The people liberated themselves from nobility and clergy whose
unfounded claim to belong to a higher sacrosanct elite, given by god, was
recognised as a terrible deception. One understood that the rulers of society
had to be the citizens: democracy! This also is an unmistakable sign of a
further awakening individualism.
Of course this individualism didn’t amount to much.
There was hardly any equality and the fraternity didn’t reach further than one'
s own family and friends. The relations between people were as unequal as could
be. But, more and more the people became aware ofthat
and the result was a great variety of social movements in the western world.
Among them there were socialism, communism and anarchism.
Although the people were invited by the socialists to
unite themselves, it is totally wrong to believe that the essential cultural
aim was to form collectivities and to submit the
people to those corporates. That was only the target of the 'social-
democratic' political socialists, because they had the need to conquer the
power of the state and the capitalism to make revolution and to increase the
circumstances of life. Of course, within those corporates the individuals
didn’t really count as personalities who are in principle individualists. All
in all they were only numbers. The real interest was the quantity and not the quality
of the members. To conquer the power there is a need for big masses.
However, the hidden fundamental cultural aim was not
any form of collectivity but the development of man
as individualist. This is what real happend from the
beginning of the 19th century. It explains why there started an intensive
program of education all over the western world.
Everybody felt the need to acquire knowledge. One
understood that knowledge opens the way to a better life and even to a better
world. At the same time it became clear that education is a heavy compensation
against the power of the political, religious and economic collectives.
Nowadays, at the end of the 20th century, you can conclude that in our western
world all political parties, unions, associations and in fact even states
collapse at a great pace. Their inner powers are dwindling, corruption
increases hand over fist and it becomes more and more impossible to take
efficient measures. The education has stimulated individualism and as a result
it disintegrates all collectivities.
Politicians like to say that the actual collapse of a
great number of collectivities is a case of
deterioration of values. That is understandable, for it gives them the
opportunity to blame the people and then to tighten the reins in the attempt to
maintain their privileged positions. Those positions can only exist as long as
one believes in collective societies. So, when the old collectivity
is dying one has to create a new collective social system. The unification of Europe must be seen in that light: it is the building up
of a new and big collectivity, in fact the dream of
Napoleon and Hitler. And it is indeed revealing that France
and Germany present
themselves as the leaders of that new Europe!
That 'new' Europe is in essence a very old Europe
in wich individuals are submitted to the powerful
economic whole. It seems that within that united Europe
is place for individualists, but in fact only shrewd businessmen are free to be
individualists. Ordinary people will be fully hedged by that upper-class…
It is significant that the politicians are organizing
a united Europe whereas there is a complete
failing of social unity and justice. For the people there are no possibilities
to develop themselves as individualists. Since united Europe
wil1 be organized as a commercial enterprise ordinary people only count as
inevitable expenses. Of course one tries to make those expenses as low as
possible. And there is no interest in creating conditions for individual
development except when there should be a need for educated employees for the
business. But such an individuality is limited to a prescribed form of
behaviour. It is but a cosmetic individuality.
Concerning the values, in fact there is no
deterioration. It is only the collective system of obedience, with its rights
and duties, that falls into pieces. One cannot longer believe in divine higher
powers that rule the world and claim the right to judge the people. One becomes
concious of his own responsibility for the life of
himself and his fellow-men. So, in principle even there is a higher personal
standard for values than before, but on the other hand it is indeed a fact that
most of the people doesn’t know how to handle with that own responsibility.
They reduce to disorderly behaviour, of ten with the intention to defy the
traditional power-system. It is true that this is not an agreable
situation, but it is understandable so far as people never got the opportunity
to act independent. Always there were higher powers that forced people to
submit themselves to their rules. But nowadays there is hardly any respect for
those higher powers and above that it appears more and more that their
representatives are far more disordered. Nearly every member of that ruling
class is as corrupt as can be. That gives no reason for obedience!
In its modern, but still immature form individualism
is a very selfish period of western culture. Everybody tries to use his
fellow-man in order to obtain exclusively for himself freedom and independence.
For them the society is no longer a garanty for
safety and common welfare, but an object for making as much money as possible.
One is blind for the results as there are criminality, agression
and dispair.
Even one pays no attention to his own unconfortable psychological feelings and one is highly
astonished when one gets seriously ill. In fact it is but very slowly that the
insight grows of an unbreakable connection between one person and another. That
is to say, not a traditional vertical connection between higher powers and the
individual, but a horizontal unity of men.
This unity only can become reality when everybody is
aware of the fact that he has to do it himself, without any help from above.
Politicians and other high-placed rulers are not able to realize it. They claim
individuality and freedom only for themselves. Even if one believes in god
there is no way-out: the unity of men is exclusive a case of man himself. God
has nothing to do with it. It is the ultimate assignment for you and me. But
the condition to realize that is to be a grown-up fully self-conscious
individualist.
Since the philosophy is not there for a
few privileged, but for all people, is the quote from the article simply
allowed. Sources, however,
is appreciated. (Jan Vis, creative
philosopher)
Terug naar: STARTPAGINA
Since the philosophy is not there for a
few privileged, but for all people, is the quote from the article simply
allowed. Sources, however,
is appreciated. (Jan Vis, creative
philosopher)