Individualism or Collectivism: What makes an ideal society?

Grounded in a range of reasons, societies largely evolve into the quintessential culture of prizing community over the individual or the unconventional appreciation for personal freedom. However, being in the midst of a communications metamorphosis, technological advances have obscured the lines of existing social dynamics — driving the world towards an individualistic culture. Accordingly, in contemporary society, it has become conventional to bear a nature that is self-serving rather than self-effacing, to perceive in the terms of individualism rather than collectivism.

To carry a community that is collectivist is to delve into a marginally blanket ideology. Drawing from a host of socio-political systems, at its crux, collectivism champions the holistic society as surpassing individuals in the society themselves. In principle, it becomes a decreeing moral obligation to act not to the ends of oneself but as an organ striving to reach the ends of others — underscoring the importance of communal cohesion and welfare. Paradoxically, individualism weighs on personal freedom and liberty, essentially giving individuals the means to thrive under the umbrella of universal values.

Dr Hani Khalil Findakly, former Chief Investment Officer of the World Bank and board member of Harvard University’s Centre for Middle Eastern Studies, argues that “Individualism is essentially an embedded trait (nature) in human DNA, while collectivism is a learned behaviour (nurture) that has its roots in early human history in Mesopotamia where organised communities needed collaboration and cooperation both for survival and growth. Not surprisingly, the shift in social dynamics is moving towards a more individualistic culture, for now at least. The reasons for this shift is two-fold: the successes of entrepreneurs, who tend to be individually-driven; and, the introversion of younger generations. Oddly, such global individualistic tendencies will likely dampen social progress and ultimately economic growth that is largely a result of the collective.”

Inevitably, from this contrast spurs a questioning of the values these system possess. While viable in theory, the ethics of collectivism can be marred in face of a polarised majority. In this sense, the interests of the majority are viewed as parallel to the interests of the group. Conspiring into a primitive power struggle, minority desires become confronted rather than embraced and a rudimentary imbalance develops within society.

Although some contend that individualism conflicts with the spirit of democracy, there remains a truth to their compatibility. The overarching attribute of democracy is freedom, while the most relevant characterisation of freedom is Aristotle’s: to live, as one prefers and to exist for one’s own sake. To live based off of choice is to endeavour beyond a single role in society, to maintain more than one function in the factory-like nature of a community. Individualism parades these very sentiments.

At the same time, the pursuit for individual agendas lies often at the bedrock of social inequality. Without the guaranteed benefit posed by group success, individuals become incongruent in their ability to achieve and prosper. This by consequence separates the ties of society that make coexistence possible.   

However, Rakesh Wadhwa, author of The Deal Maker and on the board of the Liberty Institute, a Delhi-based think tank asserts that “If the world if moving voluntarily to individualism, it is good and can only be good as [long as] it is by the free choice of the individual and is in no way detrimental to coexistence. Individuals meeting, employing and moving capital — if done by free will of consenting adults without coercion of family, friends or the government is indeed the highest and most precious form of coexistence that may be possible.”

(The author is a Class 10 student of Oberoi International School, Mumbai, who has found the importance of rhetoric, prose and information in countering social injustice.)