Individuals and individualism

I’ve been reflecting on individualism quite a bit lately. It started with saturating myself in reading Edmund Burke seriously for the first time during my trip to and from San Diego and has diverted in many directions as I’ve come back to D.C. life. I’ve come to some conclusions and many more questions that I want to share in the most coherent way possible to see what you think of my reflections.

To begin with, the fact that we are created as individuals is a good gift of God. The world would be quite boring indeed if we were automatons, and even if we were and never knew life any differently, we certainly couldn’t have an appreciation for the variety of God’s vast creation that we currently enjoy in the single facet of human personality. Classic conservatism (another subject on which I hope to be able to write on intelligently someday) seeks to preserve and celebrate individuality, in rebellion against liberalism’s march toward uniformity, complete egalitarianism, and general boredom. (Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind is excellent on this subject and goes to great lengths not only to link uniformity, egalitarianism, and boredom, but also point out that conservatives on the whole do defend complete equality before God and before the law. Actually it is more recognition of rights that exist regardless of the law, as opposed to the liberal’s idea of granting “rights” to life, happiness, education and the Internet, but I digress. As I said, this is a subject on which I hope to intelligently write on eventually.)

So the good side of this individuality is different tastes in music, conversation topics, pastimes, scenery, wine – there are examples innumerable. When individuals come together in community, it can be a wonderful experience. Even communities that may seem homogenous when it comes to ethnicity, nationality, or religion are generally chock full of individuals willing to share their uniqueness with one another. (If you have any doubt on this subject, look no further than my alma mater.) I feel this is the general principle of “iron sharpening iron,” not only in a religious community spurring one another on to love and good works, but in any community, the enrichment provided by individuals discovering similarities and differences and working those things out as part of their lives.

Individualism, as I understand it, is something quite different. I think I see it most acutely in my daily life in the form of a computer the size of a credit card with headphones to match. Yes, I refer to the iPod phenomenon. Now before my iPod-toting readers get defensive, I don’t think there is anything wrong with owning or using an iPod. Just hang with me for a second while I try to think this out by writing.

Once upon a time, music could not be recorded. If you wanted to hear music, you went to the market or to a church or temple and had no say about what was going to be played. There was no “insert denarii here to request a song” – at least I don’t think there was. Part of the beauty of music was (and is) the sense of community it instills in its listeners.

Then technology advanced to the point that music could be recorded. Folks listened to the radio, but that wasn’t enough. We wanted the music we chose right then, on demand and without commercials, so there were records, eight tracks, cassettes, CDs, and now MP3s. Now we can surround ourselves with exactly we want to hear and block out the rest of the world if we’d like. (This is quite effective, when you consider how careless people walking down the street with earbuds in can be.)

Perhaps this is a complaint more against technology than individualism, but do you see how music – and almost every other part of the world – has a narrower and narrower focus? We’ve learned to cater to the individual in almost every imaginable way, and this in and of itself is not a bad thing. However, the unfortunate next step that all too many have taken is accepting the notion that the individual is Alpha and Omega of all things. I want an iPod with my music on it, all my friends like doing all the same things I do, I want a church that caters to my needs (and too often my whims), and the government should do what I think it should do.

So from music selection to lawmaking, we consider ourselves our own sovereign. I see this attitude exhibited in the letters I read every day. Such a perspective is well depicted in the scene from Runaway Jury when heated deliberations are taking place, and Nick is leading the hard-headed Frank on to say what he really thinks about the case. Ultimately, in a rage, Frank says he doesn’t think the woman whose husband was killed is entitled to anything because he’s been through a lot worse and no one ever gave him anything.

Of course this ends up being the breaking point for the rest of the jurors who realize the selfishness of Frank’s rationale, but how many times is that our attitude when we’re cut off on the freeway or have another project loaded onto us at work? We’ve been told we’re the master of our own destinies and have become so comfortable with it that we’ve started to believe it’s true. (It’s also the reason direct democracy is foolish, but that’s another story for another day.)

What great danger there is in this. Greater focus on ourselves means less focus on others, on community. There is much to be said for deference, and God put lots of structures in place (family, church, government) for us to learn about what it is to live with other people. These institutions are not always in and of themselves correct, but they are checks against our inherent selfishness and pride. I guess that’s what it comes down to; we’re all individualists in our own way, because individualism is pride actualized. We absolutely should use our individual faculties as members of these structures, but the assumption that I the individual is wiser than the collective is just as foolish as the conception that the collective is always right. Distance from structure and authority is usually a declaration of personal independence: “you’re not the boss of me.”

Maybe so. But one cannot experience the joy of sharing their individuality – and discovering the individuality of others – unless an active decision to battle individualism is made.

But what does this mean for the Reformation? Capitalism? Will I be intellectually inconsistent if I finally get an iPod someday?

Or am I just trying to be more Allis-esque in my blog posts?

Thoughts?