In contemporary society, the concept of individuality is often heralded as a cornerstone of personal freedom and self-expression. Individuality refers to the unique characteristics and qualities that distinguish one person from another. It embodies personal identity, autonomy, and the capacity to stand apart from collective norms.
Closely tied to individuality is the notion of agency—the capacity of an individual to act independently, make free choices, and exert influence over their environment. Agency empowers a person to not only conceive personal thoughts and ideas but also to express them in ways that can impact others and broader society. However, a paradox arises when we consider how individuality and agency function within the context of a collective.
For individuality to manifest meaningfully, an individual must possess agency. Agency enables individuals to express their distinct viewpoints, allowing them to be heard and potentially influence others. Agency does not exist in a vacuum; it depends on having a certain level of power and influence—the ability to affect the behavior, development, or thinking of others. This doesn't necessarily imply wielding authority over masses; even the influence typical of a "normal" life suffices. To attain even the basics of agency one needs a position within the societal hierarchy that permits their voice to be at least be acknowledged and considered.
To achieve a position of influence within the collective, individuals typically need to secure the favor and support of the collective. This process often involves aligning oneself with the group's norms, values, and expectations. In essence, one must sometimes sacrifice aspects of individuality for collectivism to gain the platform necessary for agency. This alignment requires individuals to adapt to predefined archetypes—universally recognized models or patterns of behavior and roles established by the collective.
Herein lies the paradox: to increase one's agency and influence—to express individuality effectively—one must attune oneself to the collective's predefined positions. This attunement involves bringing oneself into harmony with collective norms, which by default invalidates the foundations of individuality.
For a Western individual conditioned by entitlement, the ideas of individuality, while romantic, are ungrounded. As the current greater collective already controls the hierarchy and the positions within it, the potential to gain influence is governed by these existing structures. If you want to experience agency and attempt to increase influence by aligning with the collective and attaining assimilation with an archetype, you must first pass the "gatekeepers" of the collective. If your aims do not align with the aims of the hierarchy of the greater collective, you do not pass. If you happen to increase enough influence to the point of threatening this monopoly on collective cohesion, subversive tactics are used to knock you out. But this doesn't have to happen from a "higher-up"; it can simply come from a self-defense mechanism embedded in the collective, which may be caused by a resistance to change.
Without agency, individuality lacks practical significance. It becomes a personal illusion without the means to affect change or be recognized within the collective. Similarly, agency without influence is ineffective; the capacity to act independently means little if those actions do not resonate or impact others.
Therefore, individualism without agency is a delusion, and agency without the capacity for influence is equally illusory. The greater one's influence, the greater one's agency, and consequently, the greater the capacity to express individuality. Yet, this increase necessitates conformity to collective norms, thereby eroding true individuality.
This paradox leads to a challenging conclusion: there is no such thing as a pure individual within the societal context. The Western ideology of individualism promotes the belief in complete personal autonomy and power offering an illusion of agency and individual power while individuals remain bound by the collective's structures.
Recognizing this reality, the only pragmatic way forward is to assimilate with a collective and submit to its aims. Even when aligning with a minority collective—a smaller subgroup within the larger society—some compromise of individuality is necessary. Assimilation doesn't necessarily mean an entire surrender of personal identity but can involve finding a balance that allows for effectiveness within societal structures.
Ironically, the promotion of individualism can serve as a tool for the greater collective to identify and manage dissenting voices. By encouraging the belief in personal agency, societies may inadvertently expose those who believe they operate outside collective influence. These minority groups, thinking they have independent agency, may become more visible and, consequently, easier to suppress or integrate.
As the ancient wisdom of the Tao Te Ching suggests:
"If you want to get rid of something, you must first allow it to flourish."
This quote highlights a strategic approach where allowing something to grow makes it easier to address or eliminate. In this context, promoting individualism allows the collective to identify and manage those who might challenge the status quo.
The paradox of individuality reveals that within societal structures, true individuality may be more of an ideal than a reality. Agency and influence are intertwined with the collective, requiring individuals to navigate predefined roles and hierarchies. While individuality is celebrated, its expression is often confined by the necessity to align with collective norms to gain agency.
Understanding this paradox encourages a more nuanced view of personal freedom and societal participation. It suggests that while pure individuality may be unattainable within the collective, individuals can still find ways to express their uniqueness by strategically engaging with societal structures. Compromise and assimilation with a pre-existent large minority, rather than total conformity or complete rebellion, may offer the most effective path for individuals seeking to make a genuine impact.
There are, of course, times when it seems no current collective represents a true solution, even with a level of compromise, and this may precipitate a time of observation for those who would be mindful in their choices.
By acknowledging these truths and the cold, hard, stark rules of reality, we stand in a greater position of agency than those who do not. Knowledge is power, and with the foundation of honesty, we can create structures that last on into eternity.
Thanks for this. I think we need to further separate the collective into 'society' and 'government'. (I'm sure government would prefer we didn't).
Those who prioritise the freedoms of the individual aren't generally opposed to society, which is the voluntary form of the collective, but to the government, which is the involuntary form of the collective.
Going one further, I'd say any group one is unable to leave by declaration, is inherently anti-social. That makes government the antithesis of society.
Thanks for taking that time to read. That distinction is a discussion in itself. In the cohesion of propaganda to mainstream thinking of society - the distinction between the collectives of the government and of society seem to have blurred lines.
It may be a tactic in the future to deliberately propagandize against the government in order to precipitate a controlled collapse by the people to shroud the damage caused by a corrupt government.
In this sense, we must always be on our toes because while rebellion in one sense seems right - in a different context only months apart, it plays right into this game.
True rebellion means being effective. If we cannot see the difference and choose to engage in rash emotional responses - we lose our sight and the ability to distinguish collectives, motives or to see deeper game plans.
As soon as we react on any scale - we create for ourselves a position. As soon as we have a position, we are confined to the boundaries of that position within the collective.
It's hard to know exactly where to place influence or allegiance in such a time in order to be effective.
Here's a good start.
On top of my previous comment, due to recent events within the last few years, the individuality and agency we thought was valid within the context of the collective of society became threatened through the cohesion of society and government as the two collectives made an unsanctimonious marriage. Within this, the agency we assumed would always be ours in a 'free thinking' society was deprived of us when we did not conform to the new cohesion thus illuminating the illusion of free will we had - these high and mighty thoughts of free will and agency without government while living in a privileged context. As a result of this new data, we must act smarter than ever before to be effective - including allowing fluidity and adaptability in our identity as much as possible.
The article is written from the perspective of someone that has spent their entire life indulging in the philosophy of individualism and using various spiritual ideologies to justify that indulgence - not seeing through the propaganda that I was raised within, this deliberately individualised societal conditioning.
I'm really not sure what to do from here. I suppose just living a life in a simple way is a good thing to do in the meantime. Creating more awareness where it is within my power to do so. But not doing anything so rash as to limit future effectivity - a kamikaze sacrifice is self-indulgent at best and its effectiveness would be muted efficiently.
It's a tight rope, a narrow path, a knife's edge kind of thing.
Collectives I shunned in the past may be necessary to align with for a more effective solution in the longrun - any ideas of having individual autonomy enough to conquer this predicament alone needs to be put in a box and in the archives of possible long-term propaganda conditioning deception.
At this stage, for an over individualised individual in an entitled society the best thing to do may be to tone it down and compromise in order to be more effective within the various groups that already exist that at least have a position.
It is stupidity to assume a position just because you can think it as an individual. This kind of entitled thinking I feel now is the conditioning of disempowerment which is the exact anti-thesis of what it claims.
We must be smarter.