What is individualism? What are the principles of individualism?

In pre-capitalist society, people had no idea what individualism was. It was one of those words that was banned by censorship and religion, all people were subject to the system, and the opinion of any individual was never taken into account. Each of the people was able to express their thoughts only with the advent of the Renaissance, when man became the center of the worldview. Then people realized that individualism is the path to self-improvement, the ability to exist independently, in complete harmony with oneself. Today, this philosophical position is more than widespread throughout the world, so we are starting to study it right now.

What does this term mean?

In the “dry” understanding, individualism is a certain form of worldview that emphasizes the freedom of the individual from society and from the system, which makes it possible to bring personal interests to the fore, and to engage directly in the implementation of one’s own, and not public, desires. To make it clearer what this is, let’s consider the main signs of individualism:

• The primacy of personal goals and desires. As a rule, these run counter to public or group ones. And an individualist person will always give preference to his own needs.
• Independence in actions and deeds. Even if a person is an integral part of a team (a group at a university, a team of employees, etc.), he is quite capable of acting independently, proceeding from his own beliefs, and at the same time the likelihood that his activities will be successful is very high.

Individualism as a characteristic of Western society.

Despite the long-term propaganda of the individualistic lifestyle, its spread in the modern world cannot be called dominant. The values ​​of individualism still dominate in the developed countries of the “golden billion”, but are much less pronounced in the rest of the world, where the majority of modern humanity lives.

The cultivation of individualistic values ​​occurs in Western countries with the help of the main institutions of socialization - family and education.

The foundations of individualism are laid in the consciousness of a person in Western culture, starting from early childhood. His very environment – ​​a small family consisting of parents and children (nuclear family) – is not conducive to the development of “we” thinking. The main goal of upbringing and primary socialization in such a family is primarily related to “putting the child on his feet” and teaching him to live independently. Once this goal is achieved, the child is expected to leave the family and begin to live on his own, maintaining a separate household. At the same time, contacts with parents and close relatives may be minimized or stopped altogether.

Raising independence in children, parents in Western countries encourage their children to learn to earn their own needs, starting from a very early age. Pocket money is considered as the child’s complete property, which he is free to dispose of at his own discretion. In the future, this practice of part-time work helps teenagers pay for their university studies on their own and be almost completely independent of the financial capabilities of their parents. In some countries, measures taken by the government also contribute to the development of self-reliance. For example, in the Netherlands the government provides a cash allowance for each student. Previously, this benefit was given to parents, but now it is directly paid to the students themselves, making them practically independent economic entities.

Not only family relationships, but also the entire educational system of society are oriented towards the development of independence in the West. The younger generation is taught to cope independently, without outside help, with uncertain, unforeseen situations. Since society does not take care of the future of the younger generation, the most basic thing it can give them for survival is the ability to adapt, the ability to win their place in the sun. To achieve this, young people are taught independent learning skills. It is not at all necessary for a teenager to know thoroughly what is being done and how in a given situation, but he must have a clear idea of ​​the ways and means of independently mastering new areas of activity.

Independence and self-reliance are promoted in developed Western countries by an impartial education system. The social origin and social environment of the student do not play any significant role here. Everyone has equal rights and responsibilities. Focusing on achieving specific goals, rather than maintaining long-term relationships, leads to the rapid formation and disintegration of groups, depending on the tasks set.

Cultivating “I” thinking leads to a number of natural consequences. The main one is the tradition of openly speaking and defending one’s opinion, no matter how impartial it may be. The clash of different opinions and open confrontation are seen in Western countries as engines of progress, the crucible of truth and truth. Thus, conflicts in the life of society, generated by the clash of individual ambitions, are considered as a completely natural and inevitable phenomenon.

Since in an individualistic society each member is free to hold his own beliefs and have his own personal point of view, it is clear that such cultures are pluralistic by definition. This determines the freedom of press and speech that reigns in such cultures.

Why do individualistic values ​​prevail in the West, but are poorly developed in the East?

One of the main prerequisites for the development of individualism is the welfare of society. Scientists have discovered a direct relationship between the share of gross national product per capita and the degree of individualism. This phenomenon is explained by the fact that increased financial well-being leads to the social and psychological independence of the individual. Therefore, individualism in the countries of the rich West is more developed than in the countries of the poor East.

In addition, the increase in the degree of individualism is also associated with the rate of population growth. The lower the population growth, the more often small families arise, in which favorable conditions are created for the child to be self-oriented. As the population explosion continues in the East, large families hinder the development of the spirit of individualism.

Individualism is directly related to the development of pluralism and the possibilities of choice. The more diverse the normative system of a society, the greater the chances for the development and prosperity of individualism. This diversity of norms is observed in multicultural, cosmopolitan societies, as well as at the intersection of different cultures. By choosing which system of norms to act in accordance with, a person takes the first step towards autonomy and independence. In addition, he is forced to show tolerance towards those who coordinate their actions with some other system, thus recognizing the right to the individual choice of another person. Therefore, the democratic traditions of the West are much better at stimulating the development of individualism than the authoritarian cultures of the East.

However, the question of what is the cause of the development of individualism and what is its consequence is very ambiguous. In particular, liberal economists believe that it is not wealth that leads to increased individualism, but rather that increased individualist values ​​promote economic growth. This is exactly how, for example, Max Weber interpreted the role of Protestantism, the most individualistic variety of religious consciousness, in the genesis of capitalism.

Within any society, representatives of the upper strata of society, as well as highly qualified professionals, show a greater tendency towards individualism. Individualists are more common among migrants and those seeking social mobility.

Undoubtedly, individualism looks very attractive from the point of view of developing the unique characteristics of each individual. In addition, individualism promotes the development of responsibility and independence. But it does not at all follow from this that the development of individualism does not have any negative aspects. Unlimited, selfish freedom of choice leads to the growth of such forms of behavior that not only deviate from the norm, but are openly harmful to the well-being of other people (alcoholism, drug addiction, crime). By gaining independence, a person risks being left alone with emerging problems. Not everyone can afford the freedom of individual choice, which leads to an increase in stress, mental disorders, and suicides in developed Western countries.

What is this worldview based on?

Now let us pay attention to what the main principle of individualism is, without which this philosophical movement could not exist. So, individualism is based on the fact that every person can, and moreover, should, live in full accordance with their desires - physical and mental. His every action should be based on his dream, need, passion and so on. This applies to both leisure and work. In other words, an individualist will always choose a profession that will bring him only pleasure and income, and not irritation, he will spend his free time with maximum benefit and efficiency, all his endeavors will be somewhat selfish in nature. However, there is one more very important rule - all this should not interfere with the manifestation of individualism in other people nearby.

Joint confrontation with the forces of nature

Ancient people, who did not understand the laws of the structure of the surrounding world and did not know more effective ways of obtaining food and building housing except those that required the participation of a large number of people, accordingly could not even think about contrasting their individuality with the collective.

Separation from society, expulsion from its ranks meant inevitable death. In this sense, circumstances changed little in antiquity and even during the Middle Ages. Moreover, in those days, only a very limited circle of people knew about the latest achievements of science.

Ideals and idols

Throughout the history of mankind, various values ​​of individualism have been formed, which have progressed and changed, but have survived to this day. We can say that compared to the society of the 19th century, now this worldview system is much more widespread from a social point of view - people have more freedoms and rights. On what basis did our society become like this, why have we reached this point of development? To do this, just look in retrospect and pay attention to famous ancestors. In the ancient world, the mythical Achilles from the Iliad was an individualist. Despite the fact that he fought for the state, he had his own judgment on everything and acted as he saw fit. In the Middle Ages, individualists were called rebels and considered the main danger of society - just remember Joan of Arc. Since the Renaissance, we see that individualism is basically literature. Daniel Defoe, Jack London, Dostoevsky, all the poets of the Silver Age and many others. The main value in the lives of the above-mentioned persons was the ability to make their own decisions and make their lives different from others.

The role of personality in history

These ideas eventually formed into a doctrine called methodological individualism.

His followers believed that the role of various human communities in world history was greatly exaggerated.

Groups of people should not be studied according to the same principles that are used in the study of individuals. Ultimately, society is nothing more than a collection of people. Therefore, when studying various historical events, one must rely not on the psychology of the masses, but on information about individual characters and destinies. A presentation of the idea of ​​individualism of this kind in its extreme form of manifestation may look like this.

All historical events, such as wars, revolutions, migrations of peoples, are the ideas of individual people, which were then picked up by the masses.

Cultural aspect

The culture of individualism itself plays a very important role, which, in fact, keeps this worldview afloat. Thanks to the fact that over the centuries our society becomes more like a flock ruled by one shepherd, it is improving.

This is manifested both in everyday life (improving living conditions, inventions in the field of technology) and in traditions (for example, a modern person will not be laughed at because he did not celebrate the vernal equinox, or his front door will not be tarred if he cheated on his wife). The development of a culture of individualism makes it possible for many artists and writers to “break through.” Our cultural society is beginning to take shape from full-fledged thinking individuals who can find a compromise with each other without abandoning their personal principles.

Personality types with an individual's worldview

The general orientation of the philosophy is expressed in the epithets “dissident, nonconformist, independent, original, freethinker.” In 19th-century Germany, individualism was closely associated with the aspirations of Romanticism, in England with utilitarianism and economics, and in America with the basic political and social values ​​of democracy and capitalism.

For many Indian schools, and especially for Buddhists and Jains, spiritual purification and eventual union with the Absolute depend solely on the individual's personal efforts.

In China, Confucianism holds that although people are born with equal abilities, only a few achieve high positions because a person's moral qualities depend on practice and education.

Photo: fortnightly.com

According to Socrates' "know thyself", virtue and other forms of knowledge cannot be taught or transmitted directly from one person to another. Rather, each person must discover for himself what is true for himself.

Christianity introduced the doctrines of free will and personal salvation, which added a new dimension to human individuality.

Muslim teaching held that man, not God, is responsible for sin. In the same way, the Koran gives the idea of ​​personal salvation, which is much more vital and carnal than the Christian one.

In modern society, the characteristics of the term are often associated with men and urban lifestyles.

Generalized geographic clusters of individualism can be found in English-speaking countries, Germanic Europe, and northern Europe. Regions for collectivism are located in Arab countries, Latin America, Confucian Asia, South Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa.

Bio

Joshua Rosenthal, founder of the Institute of Integrative Nutrition, now the largest nutrition school in the world, coined the term “bioindividuality” several years ago. In simple terms, it all comes down to the fact that we are all unique and inimitable. There is no “one size fits all” in life just because we are all special. We all have our likes, dislikes, loves, allergies, illnesses, and preferences. Let's think about body composition, dietary needs, mental characteristics, passions and more.

Photo: twitter.com

In relation to lifestyle, 3 principles of bioindividuality for healthy eating are popular:

• No diet or lifestyle works equally well for everyone.
• Needs change over time.
• One man's food is another man's poison.

Not everyone benefits from vegetarianism. If you can easily do without meat, do not persistently try to convert those around you: what is good for a Russian is death for a German.

In biology, the whole organism is considered as a unit of natural selection. When considering evolutionary processes, units are also considered to be individual groups of genes or colonies of creatures.

Decadents

At the end of the 19th century, decadence emerged in Western Europe as an artistic and literary movement that followed an aesthetic ideology of excess and artificiality.

The trend was characterized by self-loathing, a painful perception of reality, general skepticism, and glorification of perversions. He is characterized by crude humor and a belief in the superiority of creativity over logic.

Photo: pinterest.ru

The decadent movement reached Russia mainly through the influence of the works of Charles Baudelaire and Paul Verlaine. The earliest Russian adherents lacked ideology. They focused on themes such as the erosion of morality, disregard for personal health, and a life of blasphemy and sensual pleasure. The basis of the creative individualism of Russian writers was the painful aspects of decline and fascination with death.

Dmitry Merezhkovsky is believed to have been the first to explicitly promote Russian decadence. The first Russian writers of this formation were Konstantin Balmont, Fyodor Sologub, Valery Bryusov and Zinaida Gippius.

As the Russian movement developed, no longer imitating Baudelaire and Verlaine, most of these authors approached symbolism.

A number of artists followed the late decadent Baju movement's approach to sexuality as an act of pleasure, placing it within the context of material luxury. They also deliberately shocked society. Among the brawlers were Konstantin Somov, Nikolai Kalmakov and Nikolai Feofilaktov.

Anarchists

Philosophical anarchism is a school that argues that the state lacks moral legitimacy. Unlike revolutionary anarchism, the theory does not involve violent revolution, but peaceful evolution. Without calling for the destruction of the apparatus, its supporters believe that they are not obliged to obey the state.

Photo: mdig.com.br

This worldview is part of a vibrant individualist anarchism.

Decadent, aristocrat, writer Oscar Wilde, an anarchist by conviction, in his famous article “The Human Soul under Socialism” stated that “Art is individualism, and individualism is a disturbing and disintegrating force. This is its great value. He seeks to destroy monotony, the slavery of custom, the tyranny of habit and the reduction of man to the level of a machine.”

Thus, the word individualism was used to denote a personality with a strong desire for self-expression and experimentation, in contrast to traditional patterns of behavior.

Compared to the opposite term

For contrast, let's try to compare collectivism and individualism and determine why some people tend to have one, and others - another. Collectivism is the tendency of an individual to function and think in a larger society. As a rule, in such cases people depend on each other or on the head of such a group. The very first group a person joins is the family. If it is large (many children, or grandparents, aunts, uncles), then the child grows up with a collective worldview. In the future, the opinions of others are important to him, he strives to get a job in a company with a large staff, and is looking for many friends. If there is only one child in the family, he develops an individualistic worldview, which we discussed above.

Empirical studies of individualism in the modern world.

In the second half of the 20th century. the concept of “individualism” is becoming increasingly important in social psychology. Without rejecting the opinion that traditional culture is initially more inclined to collectivism than the culture of developed societies, scientists turned their attention to the spread of the values ​​of individualism in the modern world. Empirical research has gradually developed the belief that pure individualism and pure collectivism are quite rare. In the minds of ordinary people, there is usually a certain synthesis of the values ​​of both individualism and collectivism.

The American social psychologist G. Triandis proposed a special term, idiocentric, denoting people with an individualistic worldview, for whom their own beliefs, feelings and emotions come first, as opposed to relationships with other people. However, in a situation of danger, even idiocentrics activate collectivist preferences. In general, idiocentrics focus on values ​​associated with personal pleasures and welcome stimulation and self-regulation of behavior. They are focused on constant self-improvement and are not prone to modesty. Individualists perform better by working independently and striving to improve their personal results. In a conflict situation, they strive to change the situation, not themselves. In relationships with other people, idiocentric individualists strive for short-lived relationships that are not deep in nature.

Modern scientists proceed from the unity of individualism and collectivism at the level of not only individual, but also collective consciousness. Every culture has both features of one and properties of the other. Another thing is that their ratio varies significantly from one country to another.

Qualitative research has led to the belief that in the Western world, individualistic characteristics tend to prevail, while in Eastern countries, collectivist characteristics tend to prevail. To take the next step forward and talk about this difference with facts in hand, it has become necessary to quantitatively compare cultures on this parameter. This task was implemented in ethnometric studies devoted to the quantitative assessment of the main characteristics of the mentality of different nations.

The largest and most wide-ranging measurement of cultural indicators, including individualism as one of the most important, was carried out by the Dutch social psychologist Geert Hofstede (Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, 1980). Hofstede's first questionnaires date back to 1967–1973, when he studied employees of the transnational corporation IBM, which has branches in dozens of countries around the world. Later, social scientists from many countries around the world, including Russia, joined in measuring comparative cultural indicators using Hofstede’s methodology. The fruit of collective scientific developments was the methodology of the Value Survey Module 1994 (VSM 94), which is used today to most often calculate the indicator of individualism for people in different countries of the modern world.

Individualism in Hofstede’s concept is interpreted as an indicator of whether people prefer to take care only of themselves and their own families, or have a tendency to unite in certain groups that are responsible for a person in exchange for his subordination to group values ​​(Table 1). As a result of a survey of respondents, each of the countries studied received estimates of the degree of dominance of individualism values, which range from 0 to 100.

The use of Hofstede's methodology to assess the adherence of citizens of different countries to the values ​​of individualism generally confirmed the opinion that the “individualistic” West is opposed to the “collectivist” East. Indeed, individualism indices are highest for the countries of Western Europe (especially for the countries of the Anglo-Saxon civilization - USA, Great Britain) and lowest for the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America (see Fig. 1). It is interesting to note that the more developed countries of the East (Japan, newly industrialized countries) demonstrate, in general, a higher level of individualism in comparison with other non-Western countries. Thus, the contrast between the cultures of the “collectivist” East and the “individualistic” West is transformed (but not destroyed!) under the influence of the differences between the rich North and the poor South.

Hofstede's research served as an incentive for many other scientists who proposed their own cultural indicators and methods for assessing them. Although the set of cultural indicators varied greatly, the dichotomy “individualism - collectivism” was used by almost all scientists. The difference between the studies was in the content of the concept of “individualism” and in the methodology for measuring the degree of preference for individualistic values.

For example, the Dutch social psychologist Fons Trompenaars uses the dilemma “Individualism vs. communitarianism." According to his approach, in societies with a high rate of individualism, the interests of the individual (personal happiness, achievement and well-being) are placed above the interests of the group. In any situation, a person will first look out for his personal interests and the well-being of his own family. When individualism dominates, society itself is assessed in terms of how it serves the individual interests of its members. When communitarianism predominates, the interests of the group, on the contrary, prevail over individual interests. Individual members of society have a responsibility to ensure that their actions benefit the entire society. Here it is not society that is assessed, but the individual, whose importance depends on how he serves the interests of the community.

To assess the degree of commitment to individualistic values ​​of people from different countries, Trompenaars asked participants in sociological surveys to choose from two antagonistic statements the one that seems most fair to them: either “if you have as much freedom as possible and maximum opportunities to develop yourself, then As a result, the quality of life will improve”; or “if an individual continuously shows concern for his fellows, the quality of life will improve for everyone, even if this hinders the exercise of individual freedom and individual development.” Trompenaars considered the criterion for the degree of development of individualistic values ​​to be the percentage of those who chose the first dilemma. The results he obtained (Table 2) turned out to be in many ways close to Hofstede’s: among countries with a high preference for individual independence (where more than 50% chose the first option of the proposed dilemma), European countries absolutely predominate (the only exceptions are Nigeria and Venezuela), and among countries with low preference for Eastern countries (the only exception is France).

Israeli social psychologist Sholom Schwartz uses a complex indicator called “embeddedness vs. autonomy."

By inclusion, Schwartz means cohesive, harmonious relationships where the life paths of individuals are inseparable from the life path of the group. In cultures with a high degree of individual inclusion in groups, a person associates the meaning of his life with social relationships and identification with the group. Such cultures emphasize the status quo, propriety, and the restriction of actions and inclinations that might disrupt solidarity or traditional order. This is directly related to values ​​such as social order, respect for tradition, family safety and wisdom. The antithesis of inclusion is autonomy. It is characteristic of societies in which the individual is viewed as a completely autonomous being, having every right to pursue his own goals and emphasize his uniqueness, his inner world (preferences, feelings, motives). Schwartz distinguished two types of autonomy: intellectual autonomy is following one’s own ideas (independence of thinking), emotional autonomy is following one’s own sensory desires. Essentially, he looked at different aspects of individualistic behavior - the desire to think independently and the desire for personal pleasure.

The picture constructed by Schwartz of the distribution of countries in the world according to the degree of expression of the principles of inclusion and autonomy in them (Fig. 2) also turned out to be close to Hofstede’s results: high autonomy (the left part of the diagram) is typical for the countries of Western European civilization, high inclusion (the right part) is for other countries .

It is easy to notice that the ethnometric studies of social psychologists differ in many details. For example, the range of opinions about Japanese culture: according to Hofstede, the Japanese are approximately in the middle of the “individualism – collectivism” scale; according to Trompenaars, they are distinguished by a very weak commitment to individualism; according to Schwartz, their commitment to the principles of autonomy is even higher than that of the Americans. However, in general, all studies confirm the qualitative differences between the individualistic West and the collectivist East. “The West is the West, the East is the East, and they cannot leave their place...” (R. Kipling) However, the development of the world economy and the relative convergence of national economic models still create conditions for some smoothing of these contrasts.

Methodological individualism

This term refers to a theoretical position. It is assumed that for an adequate sociological assessment of a particular phenomenon or object, it is necessary to turn to the individual, that is, to a person. What is meant here is the human factor, impermanence and non-standardism. In other words, if in past centuries prisoners were tried on the basis of written laws, sometimes very cruel, without the right to amnesty, today any crime is viewed through various prisms, while finding a reasonable and humane compromise. The principle of methodological individualism is that an appeal to some kind of “humane reason” (it doesn’t matter whether it’s a living person from whom advice is asked, or some kind of deity) can be carried out both by a simple citizen of the world and by a representative of state power. Each of them must look for the most reasonable solution to any issue, weighing all the circumstances.

Prerequisites and emergence of individualism

Already in the time of Socrates, thoughts were expressed regarding the understanding and need to determine who an individual is. A little later, in the Hellenistic era, individualistic views became more widespread. Representatives of the school of Stoicism considered life in harmony with nature and observance of its laws to be a blessing for man. There was no mention of the value of groups or communities. The Middle Ages proclaimed the individuality of the individual, but only in its relation to the divine: everyone is equal before God, everyone carries within himself a part of divine power. Devotion to a higher power was beyond doubt, although the same Calvinism placed full responsibility for the activities and choices made on the person himself.

Personal savings and the formation of entrepreneurship during the reign of capitalist relationships were the material embodiment of the principles of individualism. The desire to increase one's own well-being was encouraged, which was directly linked to the development of the entire society. Private interests were placed even above state ones. The teachings of the New Age begin to address deep themes - individual consciousness and self-knowledge. Descartes R., Spinoza B. and others assign a large role to the ability to reflect. The emerging theory of law asserts, in addition to what has been said, the autonomy of the individual and the ability to make judgments.

The emergence of individualism and corresponding terminology dates back to the 18th and 19th centuries. A. de Tocqueville was convinced of the positive power of this new phenomenon and said that it would help a person become more active, more purposeful and separate from the rest of the masses and their influence. It becomes important for an individual to understand himself and his nature, the formation and positioning of the inner self, a focus on personal norms, and not the acceptance of imposed standards.

Another point of view

In contrast to this theory, there is another, which at different times was expressed by supporters of such teachings as holism and historicism. These thinkers argued that an individual cannot play any significant role on the scale of world civilization.

All processes occurring in the sphere of politics and economics, as a rule, follow the same scenarios. The same can be said about the fate of individual peoples and states. Each of these social formations goes through the stages of origin, development, flourishing, extinction and death. According to some historians, most major highly developed civilizations have existed for about 2000 years. There are some exceptions (India, China), but they, as is commonly believed, only confirm the rule.