Communality in Individuality, Thoughts on Assignment 1

 In writing this week's essay, I found the question, “what is the individual’s responsibility to society?" vague. Neither the nature of the individual’s responsibilities nor the identity (or timeline) of the society can be ascertained from the question, leading one to assume that the individual in question must be a member of the reader’s contemporaneous timeline and contextual (read: identifiable) society. As the philosophy of what construes individuality may vary from country border to border, these distinctions are furthered by the eclipse of time which has seen a myriad of thoughts on individual identity, privilege, and responsibility in the collective of what is deemed society. As the essayist responding to the prompt, I may assume that the question pertains to my opinion of individual responsibility in the United States in 2020. However, I may also assume that the question maintains purposeful vagueness, and instead insists the reader to espouse personal theoretical or ideological stances on what should be the individual’s responsibility in a society. 

An argument could be made that the role of the individual’s responsibility to society in modern America has grown incrementally smaller since the famous words John F. Kennedy spoke in 1962. The call to “ask what you can do for your country” has been met with the gradual malaise of a once-burgeoning middle class bottomed out by the transition to a post-industrial economy. While productivity of the average American worker has continued to increase into the 21st century, things such as church attendance, community involvement, and volunteer hours have witnessed declines. The preponderance of convenience culture permeating instant gratification has set ablaze neurons in our prefrontal cortexes, activating a limbic system encouraged to drive, buy, and drink as much as possible. 

Our marriages fall apart and our children shoot each other while mom and dad work four combined jobs, our cities have been decimated by a federal government that used freeway dollars to exploit black and poor communities, letting those with money flee to the ever-further suburbs. Meanwhile, neoliberalism has instilled a fear of social services, a distrust of public administration, and a resentment of taxes which has brought us patriots like Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump which manipulated disenfranchised whites into voting for austerity measures further discouraging public involvement. 

The cage that is mass car-ownership has distilled a nativist and sociopathic mindset helping to keep us terrified of each other. Constant media attention on what sells — violence —keeps our doors locked, our eyes scurried around. The rise of libertarianism is no surprise: we can’t trust each other so we surely cannot trust the government. As a result, the individual has retreated. Away from societal responsibility. Away from civics. Even local newspapers are dying. We don’t go to post offices anymore — where else can we engage the community? 

It is no surprise that this country is undergoing a major drug addiction problem and witnessing a decrease in life expectancy. We don’t care about each other anymore. 

The role of individual responsibility in 21st century America is a role cosigned to the few left who still believe in it: our servicemen, our social workers, our least paid. I don’t think this is tenable or sustainable. If we are to have a working democracy, we must find greater individual responsibility and learn to care more for each other. So what should an individual’s responsibility to society be? 

In discussion of the role of the individual in society, one must ascertain the nature of individualism versus that of the collective to gain understanding of their relation. 

Individualism relies upon inherent self-interest and innate self-preservation of the human being to promote success and, ultimately, survival. In modern discussions, individualism is connoted with Ayn Randian derivatives of selfishness, although self-interest and selfishness are not the same thing. In common with both, however, is the insistence that advocating for the self is a positive trait. 

What complicates this thought is the role that such individualism takes in the context of a community or society. This may take the form of collectivism versus individualism. I will argue that the role of the individual is to take part in communalism, or the act of collective action, and that this role helps the individual achieve more than acting alone. 

Humans originally arranged in tribes for prehistoric protection and sustenance, but whereas ancient humans assimilated into tribes against predators/belligerent nations, modern humans do not have immediate threats encouraging actions to protect themselves and, thus, no direct necessity for tribal communalism. Without constant threat of death, Westernized nations are devoid of typical tribes, but instead manifest their innate need for community in brands, cities (think ubiquity of city flags in Chicago), sports, corporations, churches, etc. This new type of “tribe” does not exist for a common, collective goal of survival but instead one solely out of evolved instincts to bind with others, therefore its existence is not as fulfilling as it lacks direct contribution to each and every person’s life or livelihood.

These new tribes, such as sport, offer persons the satisfaction of instant victory or accomplishment, somewhat negating the instinctual pleasure of communalizing together for a common goal which was previously an arduous, drawn-out process e.g. war between tribes. Whereas the former is instant gratification of victory, giving immediacy to the fulfillment of attaining a goal, the former even further instills this satisfaction by giving members a more pronounced definition of what the victory means. Thus, typical evolutionary need for tribes and the pleasure that arises from that community is not as satisfactory in a humanity that derives community from day-long or mere hours-long events.  

Something such as sports gives communal feel, yet the end result of that community has no effect on its outcome. Church community activity will not change the doctrine or accomplish goals that are self-satisfying to each and every member. There is no common shared goal that every member is vying for. Sport community has a shared goal but fans and media and metropolitan areas have no bearing on what the outcome of games are, depriving and/or establishing belief that a single individual can change the result, hardly a communal task.

School community offers no goal but still produces community by a collection of single individuals accomplished goals or those currently en-route to individual goals. A common goal is not present but the branding of school sport teams present this, however, that goal is vacuous as previously explained. Students/Alum do not inflict common goals that equally serve every member’s interests.

Is self-interest, an evolutionary instinct, more present than ever? Or is it more innate than even the need to commune? This latter question is probably true, although the disparity between the instinct to collaborate and that of self-interest has widened in recent history.

Most necessities required for survival are assumed to be provided for in Western nations, so self-interest instinct borne of self-preservation and the derivation of that instinct is now too pronounced. Before self-preservation was manifested in self-interest but now survival needs are met, the derived self-interest is not as crucial.

As society becomes more ensured for, one would think communal instinct would prevail over the need for only individual sustenance. This prevailing communalism would provide conducive to combating modern threats to our ability to survive -such as civilization exploiting natural resources. However, this is not the case.

The capacity of humanity as a united body (think Allied forces in WWII) would always be stronger than the collected capacities of individuals and their pursuits. Also, this communalism would prove more fulfilling than the pride garnered from your own pursuits, pursuits than can only derive meaning from experiences and battles only you have faced and therefore cannot ever truly explain to another. This is different from communal quests, where each and every member can relate and share with others that understand the exact experiences and battles you are describing. In a vacuum, an individual’s pursuit of personal goals will surely intervene or diminish the accomplishment of others, leading to inevitable discontentment among some members (think a CEO’s pursuit of individual goals leading to a manufacturer losing his job). 

In the context of the United States, American ideals perpetrate individualism, in which one person’s “America” is not the same as another, instigating disenfranchisement amongst citizens, members of the same “tribe”. (Think Tea Partiers v.s. Pro-choice activists, or a man with an American flag in his garage voting for policies that will harm the environment his fellow Americans share.) “A house divided against itself will not stand”, in which “minding one’s own business” and not affronting or establishing positions on commonality or tribal goals (politics) is dangerous, allowing those individuals with greater sway or political fortitude to alter national goals toward agendas favoring their own individual interests, thus mitigating the fulfillment of others. This lack of collective purpose creates discontent and individualism run amok. The individual must gear their individualism toward collective goals.

An individual’s responsibility to society, then, is one relegated to what propels society forward. Rather than facing inwards, the individual must face out and participate in collective action with a shared goal toward advancing society.  Only when individualism culminates in collective action may progress occur. Thus, the individual’s responsibility to society is to participate in communal purposes.

Excited to read your posts!