Wil Wilkinson takes David Brooks’ – and John McCain’s – “country first” calls for a new collectivism apart. Individualism, Wilkinson reminds us, is in sync with the great march of human progress. Individualistic societies grow faster and their people are happier than collectivist ones.
Wealth, which produces all sorts of hugely desirable human goods, also weakens orientation toward pre-assigned roles and their obligations and strengthens the orientation toward individual fulfillment, resulting in more fulfillment. Collectivist moral cultures do serve an important function in the typical human condition. But we are lucky when that function has become unnecessary
He cites a study by Aaron Ahuvia in the Journal of Happiness Studies which finds that:
Rather [than increasing happiness directly through increased consumption], economic development increases SWB [subjective well-being] by creating a cultural environment where individuals make choices to maximize their happiness rather than meet social obligations (Coleman, 1990; Galbraith, 1992; Triandis, 1989; Triandis et al., 1990; Veenhoven, 1999; Watkins and Liu, 1996). This cultural transformation away from obligation and toward the pursuit of happiness is part of a broader transition away from collectivism and toward individualist cultural values and forms of social organization.
Collectivism is a hallamark of backwardness, closure, and fear. To my mind, the value of individualism and individual self-expression is something I thought both liberals and conservatives could agree on. And while I respect John McCain as a individual, his country-first calls for a new collectivism frankly scare me.
September 25th, 2008 at 10:53 am
This brings up all sorts of responses.
McCain’s “County First” is rooted in his military experience, and coming from a family of military elite (Father & Grandfather both Admirals)he may not be entirely comfortable with a society of widely diverse and divergent interests. His “maverick” tendencies conflict with the Follow Orders ethic of his formative years. His latest opt out of debates is counterproductive and a scary indication of how he might govern (I don’t know much about the economy, but I’m gonna dive into the center because that’s where the action is.) The officer’s shout of “Follow Me” to the troops can lead to victory or disaster, depending on whether his assessment of a situation is accurate.
Collective covers a lot of ground. Large collective societies a la the Soviet Union did producce backwardness, closure and fear. But small collective societies, as in some tribal peoples, is the root of much creativity and well being.
In the US, “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.” is still one of the abiding calls to action, and from a President who championed individualism.
Extreme individualism as preached by Ayn Rand et. al can be isolating and counter to the good of both the individual and the society. We are social beings. We function best when we play well with others.
September 25th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Richard,
McCain’s sensibilities are disturbing. But as Michael Wells writes, there are other varieties of collectivism. Maybe a better word is integration. Hannah Arendt, in her discussion of the “public”, has a lovely concept of “sameness out of utter diversity”. By this she means the sense of shared meaning and purpose that arises – that can only arise – when people encounter and interact with difference, and come to observe that there is common purpose, even amongst the profound individuality. This is the basis of democracy, indeed. By no means do people give up their individuality. To the contrary, there can be no “public” without encountering intense diversity. But, without some kind of integrating force, there is ultimately no polity left at all. Just, as Thatcher said, individuals and families, with no image of the collective good that these individuals could identify with. Knowing that Wilkinson is something of a right-wing “libertarian”, I fear that is what he indeed seeks. But there needs to be integrating forces to complement the individuating forces. The hyper-individuating forces are what has led to the isolation of the privatized and subjective identity politics of the past, rather than to a richer, more interactive, and I would say more urbane and humane politics, which incorporates both individuating and integrating notions, like Arendt describes. Wilkinson seems to be drawing false distinctions to make his own predictable ideological arguments.
September 25th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
it is quite a western bias to think that collectivism is bad. the positive side of individualism is creativity; independent thought, etc. but the bad side is a lack of respect for seniority, and selfishness. Collectivism teaches a lot of respect for community and country, teaches selflessness, but on the other hand stiles individual expression and creativity. So it is not black and white; its a balance.
September 25th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Have you ever volunteered and did some community service? If you have, you will understand that sometimes putting others first could make you happier than if you thought about yourself all the time. But putting others first all the time isn’t healthy either. My point is, a successful society has a balance of collectivism and individualism.
September 26th, 2008 at 5:17 am
that ’s very intersting!
September 26th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
“Individualistic societies grow faster and their people are happier than collectivist ones.”
“Collectivism is a hallamark of backwardness, closure, and fear. ”
Here again, Florida makes a generalization that does not apply worldwide. China is certainly more collectivist than America and it’s economy has grown enormously over that last few decades and currently has nearly 2 trillion dollars of foreign exchange reserves. Hundreds of millions of Chinese have been lifted out of poverty due in large part to government leadership with respect to the economy. The key point that Florida misses is that collectivism can be very beneficial depending on the nature of the people and the exact details of the collectivism. In a globalized economy where people and capital are mobile a collectivist society that can pool its resources can out compete societies like America’s that are more individualistic. That is happening right now as we see America’s economy collapsing.
September 28th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
I remember reading that Brooks piece in the New York Times a few months back (?) and I have to say he seemed very far off in his generalization about “collectivism” and China, not to say that.
With all due respect, Richard (I am a huge fan of your work), I have to say, I completely disagree with the notion that collectivism necessarily implies backwardness. I do think there is much to say about too much collective focus leading to just that, yet too much individualism can also lead to problems you raised, and others have expressed deep concern over, such as gentrification.
Another that I believe is problematic, relates to another critique I have of the notion that places like New York and San Francisco are the best destination for “creative” types. As a born-and-raised New Yorker, who grew up in an artist community and has seen the years of change that has led to “market forces” like competition to cause significant changes that make it very unfriendly to “developing” artists and musicians. I want to be clear that I am a tremendous fan of your work, but I am a bit skeptical of the idea that all people who choose to live here are willing to pay high costs just to be in “New York.” I wonder if it also has to do with the lack of options in this country for not all creative class folk, but especially those who are focused on being truly innovative and not as interested in making the most money.
In New York City, my observation and experience as a DJ/musician and fan of less commercial electronic music is that we used to have more of this (NY, Detroit and Chicago are widely known for major contributions in the past), but now those who want to pursue this type of life will find fewer and fewer opportunities to do so.
Don’t take my word for it here’s a recent study on the subject:
http://www.nycpaspaces.org/wcww/Where_Can_We_Work_Report.pdf
Americans interested in pursuing many creative careers will still come here, but maybe a significant factor is because no one knows where else to go. In fact, I’ve been asking that question informally here, (I would love to do a legit survey on this) if people interested in this would prefer to go to another city if there was a better option, and I’ve been finding that this is something worth looking at. I asked that very question of three talented and passionate DJ’s from Austin who moved here years ago, last night at a lounge in the Lower East Side, and that was exactly what was said to me.
As for the benefits of collectivism and individualism, my sense is that a combination of individualism that will be most beneficial. Individualism, which equates to many of the points of your work, emphasizes the ability for one to pursue the life one desires, but a collective sense may give one a sense of community and keep the more selfish components of individualism at bay. Interestingly, the Freakonomics authors suggests that concern of what others think of you, which is oppositional to hyper-individualism, at least in terms of cheating (the honor system/bagel chapter), leads to decreased propensity to engage in such behavior.
If we are oppositional to collectivism, than I might decide that I can do whatever I want whenever I want to whoever I want if it means that it makes me “happy.” That is a staunchly libertarian view that I suspect leads to lack of motivation to bother to consider the effects on a given community or people I may be living in or making money off of.
Hyper-collectivism is surely backwards, but hyper-individualism is perhaps just as harmful.