(repost from 2018)
I feel profoundly alienated by discussions of individualism and collectivism that imply that individualism is the source of all bigotry and and that collectivism will resolve all social ills, or that collectivism is the cause of all social strife and the only means to ameliorate it is through adopting a strictly individualistic philosophy like libertarianism or Objectivism. I have seen other activists on the left decry all individualism in favour of a brand of collectivism that disregards individuality or de-prioritises it, which I find troubling for a number of reasons. First, this dichotomous view of individuality and collective identity seems primarily to be a Western construct and is not universal to human thought; individualism can indeed inform a philosophy that promotes respect and empathy for other human beings, as exemplified in the Southern African concept of ubuntu and similar worldviews from Western and Eastern African cultures. Secondly, my own personal experiences have made it intensely difficult to adopt a strictly collectivistic ideology.
Individualism and collective awareness and empathy can in fact co-exist with each other, even if prevailing Western ideologies claim they can’t. While I don’t necessarily subscribe to any pre-defined philosophy that describes the relationship between individuals and collectives, the ubuntu philosophy common in Southern African cultures is a reasonable approximation. Literally meaning humanity, ubuntu refers to a worldview that uplifts the individual and the community simultaneously. Individual identity is important, but individuals exist within a society that includes other individuals with different needs, backgrounds and priorities. Empathising with other people simply for existing and being fellow human beings leads to policies that uplift both individuals and the community at large. Existence is not, and should not be, a zero-sum game: both individuals’ and communities’ needs matter. Dismantling bigotry requires recognising others’ humanity and individuality; Michael Onyebuchi Eze (2008) describes ubuntu as a philosophy that indicates that ‘a person’s humanity is dependent on the appreciation, preservation and affirmation of other person’s humanity. To deny another’s humanity is to deprecate my own humanity’ 1. The individual and the community they belong to are mutually supporting entities that define each other.
Clinging tenaciously to strictly collectivistic views presents the risk of authoritarianism; for example, fascism, Jim Crow segregation and Stalinism were partly predicated on the impetus to reduce societies composed of disparate individuals into groups of undifferentiated people whose co-existence was fundamentally impossible (bourgeoisie and proletariat, black people and white people, Aryans and non-Aryans, etc). These worldviews erase people’s essential humanity. Some Western thinkers have also rejected the conflation between anti-oppressive leftist politics and strict Western collectivism; for example, George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four is a deeply individualistic work. He feared the encroachment of authoritarianism in British society and Western society generally because of his witnessing the spread of fascism and Leninism/Stalinism in Spain, Germany and the countries it annexed, Italy and the Soviet Union. As Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini pass out of living memory, the devastation these authoritarian leaders caused becomes less palpable, making it possible for politicians and unelected rabble-rousers like Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Richard Spencer, Steve Bannon, Geert Wilders, Bashar al-Assad, Nigel Farage and Rodrigo Duterte to gain power and cause these ideologies to become resurgent. Political practices and ideologies that place all people’s humanity at the forefront, however, will necessarily be less authoritarian because authoritarianism requires that its practitioners reduce or deny the importance of others’ humanity.
My individualist and anti-authoritarian beliefs are rooted in a desire to recognise the humanity and autonomy of other people. I am pro-human rights precisely because I am an individualist. I am pro-feminist because I believe women are individual people and they can and should make their own choices. I am anti-racist because it is invidious to assume that people must share all the same traits because of the colour of their skin or their ancestral home. I am anti-disablist precisely because I believe disabled people are individuals who deserve to have their personhood recognised in its full, multilayered reality instead of being conflated entirely with their disability instead of other personal qualities. Black lives matter precisely because we are individual human beings and have rights that inhere within that humanity. People are complex and varied. You do not have to fight bigotry and uplift the needs of marginalised people by creating binary categories in which which some are sinners and others are saints. Some marginalised people express hateful or seemingly self-contradictory views: Milo Yiannopoulos, Ben Carson and Caitlyn Jenner come to mind.
My tendency towards individualism is also deeply personal. I grew up in a relatively authoritarian environment in which loyalty to a collectivity, whether that be the United States, the fundamentalist Christian God, the family or the US armed forces, was valued over individual self-expression and identity. Moreover, family members and other adults around me would frequently reduce my personality, interests, creativity, intelligence, curiosity and independent spirit into traits of my autism diagnosis. They used these tactics to dehumanise me and to devalue my insights and beliefs. I found myself suppressing my intellectual curiosity for years because it was pathologised as Yet Another Autism Trait. I may be disabled, but my disability is not the totality of who I am. Being a disability activist should not necessitate viewing myself as a list of diagnostic traits. Nor are my race, gender, social class, upbringing, sexual orientation or political views. They certainly inform my perspective and it would be foolhardy for me to pretend that they do not, but I refuse to allow myself to become swallowed up by labels instead of viewing myself holistically. Yes, I speak as a queer, black, disabled person, but my voice is not representative of all autistic, queer, black or disabled people. It is ultimately my voice. This is different from shifting towards a ‘person with X’ construction; I think my marginalising experiences are influential, but that those experiences exist within a broader context and that people should not use them reductively to define me or my views. They are layers, influences, shades of nuance and meaning, but not the totality.
It is for these reasons that I reject the the forced choice between do-it-yourself individualism and collectivism that requires people’s subsumption into a group identity. It is a culturally bound illusion that is spatially and temporally limited. I may be an individualist, but that does not preclude my dedication to working alongside other marginalised people and those who support us in creating a more just and equitable world.
- Eze, M O. (2008). What is African communitarianism? Against consensus as a regulative ideal. South African Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 27 Issue 4. ↩
Leave a Reply