But this is a false and destructive dichotomy. Society is neither a bunch of individuals nor a controlling collectivity; it is people cooperating for mutual and general benefit. An excess of either collectivism or individualism runs to mutual benefit. The most constructive point of view is collaborative.
I illustrate with words from, of all people, Steve Jobs, the notoriously prickly founder of Apple:
I
think most creative people want to express appreciation for being able
to take advantage of the work that’s been done by others before us. I
didn’t invent the language or mathematics I use. I make little of my own
food, none of my own clothes. Everything I do depends on other members
of our species and the shoulders that we stand on. And a lot of us want
to contribute something back to our species and to add something to the
flow.… We try to use the talents we do have to express our deep
feelings, to show our appreciation of all the contributions that came
before us, and to add something to that flow. (Isaacson 2011, 570)
Is this individualism? Yes, because it values on the fullest development of each individual’s capabilities, and indeed sees such development as a moral responsibility, to “add to the flow.” And no, because it does not see the self as the end, in terms of pure self-expression or maximization of wealth, or any other purely individual need. Individuals have a responsibility to contribute to the community that shaped them.
Is this, then, collectivism? No, because collaboration doesn’t succeed if people merely do a job, fill a slot, do what they’re told, conform. It requires, from each, going beyond the job or the slot, applying lessons and skills from a unique life. And yes, because individuals know they cannot flourish without the support and interaction of many people around them, and many people from generations before; and that what they do must mesh with what others do.
Collaboration, then, is neither individualism nor collectivism. Collaboration creates a synergy between private and public, individual and collective, in which the development of personal capacities helps the community to grow, while the development of the community helps the individual to grow.
The modern world has acted as if individuals exist apart from society, and that they come together only to “truck and barter” (in Adam Smith’s phrase) or to agree on a “social contract” (in the models of Hobbes and Locke). But there has never been an individual apart from society, and if could imagine such a person he would be without language or culture, barely surviving with the crudest of food, clothing and shelter, vulnerable to every disease – not what we would call a human being. Society and individuals are interdependent.
Do you think that Steve Jobs was not collaborative, because he was a self-described “asshole” – often harsh and judgmental and seemingly uncaring? One would wish for less brutality, but collaboration is not essentially about being nice. Jobs would not have succeeded without many people who stuck with him and loved him and helped him; and he contributed enormously to them and to his community. Many people whom Isaacson interviewed agreed that, although Jobs had wounded their feelings, he had also pushed them to accomplish things they would never have achieved otherwise – and that had made them proud. You could not have a society made up entirely of assholes – they would destroy each other; but they are often an element in the most productive groups, helping avoid the opposite failing of easy agreement and sloppy conformity. They have to be assholes of a certain kind – not merely selfishly hostile, but focused on the shared purposes, intolerant of failure to make the world better; and they have to be part of a mix with more tolerant and supportive people.
The individualism-collectivism framework is false on every front. We could use a deeper understanding of interconnection and interdependence.
No comments:
Post a Comment