Why Individualists Are More Vulnerable to Dictatorship

from HuffPost:




Philip Slater
Posted March 11, 2009 | 01:50 PM (EST)
Why Individualists Are More Vulnerable to Dictatorship



After the Olympics last fall David Brooks wrote a thoughtful article comparing individualism and collectivism. He cited studies showing that individualists fail to see contexts and tend to overestimate themselves, while collectivists see relationships and tend to underestimate themselves. He seemed to be acknowledging that despite the failure of communism, and the economic superiority of the individualistic mentality, the collectivist mentality might have something to offer. It was a fine, balanced analysis, marred only by a deeply erroneous final sentence summing up the "ideal of harmonious collectivism". This, he says, is "a useful ideology for aspiring autocrats".

The truth is, history and research both tell us that the reverse is true--that a collective mentality is the best protection against autocracy. After all, the oldest strategy in the world is 'divide and conquer'.

When De Tocqueville came to the United States in the mid-19th century it wasn't just the personal freedom of Americans that impressed him, it was the incredible proliferation of associations--of clubs, societies, and activist groups. And this is, in fact, what political scientist Robert Putnam found differentiated the democratic Northern Italian from the authoritarian, mafia-dominated South. The North was characterized by a rich variety of clubs and societies. The Southerners, by contrast, were suspicious of their neighbors, saw any kind of cooperative behavior as dangerous, and longed for stronger law enforcement. Their relationships were vertical rather than horizontal, due to their dependence upon wealthy land-holding patrons who doled out favors to the subservient.

Despots are not afraid of individuals. They're afraid of populations. But the ideal American hero is a loner, and hence, a loser. We celebrate the Cowboy, incapable of cooperating with anyone, and hence no threat to those in power. Action movies are full of them--lone Rambos and Bonds, blasting away at the enemy, heroic in the movies, utterly ineffectual In real life. (As symbols, of course, they're very effective in persuading the ovine to smoke, be paranoid, and carry guns). .......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-slater/why-individualists-are-mo_b_173947.html

a rugged individualist. The irony involved in wearing the label "Dittohead" with such pride is lost on these folks. They really do consider themselves to be the most independent thinkers in the country.

They claim to be individualists, but they all repeat the same talking points with the same words in the same cadence.





Dealing with liberals on the other hand is like herding cats.

nichomachus

Hehe, good pictures, specially the nr two. That is in many way what a cat of two are... Individuals who do as they please, and not always when WE want it.. Sight, I miss my cat... Had to give her away becouse of allergy... But still miss the little devil...

And you might also be right when it came to what liberals tend to be.. We tend to be little difficult to push in the same direction:)

Diclotican

The Right Wingers are the quintessential "joiners" who "adore HATE-FULL authority figures."

By pushing down OTHERS, they believe themselves to be superior. :eyes:

for last fall's election? He would have seen this as a threat to the corporatist wing of the Republican Party

Maybe the best combination would be collectivists that revere individualism with their associated individual freedom and individualists that revere collectivist's power and the concept of a public good.

There is a saying about love which goes "If you have love let it go and if it comes back to you it was love and if it doesn't it never was." or something to that effect.

Collectivists can smother individualists, and if as Brooks and the author contend collectivists underestimate them selves, who among them would prevent authoritarians from taking power? Who will put the bell on the cat?

by their nature collectivist animals. We like and thrive in cooperation with one another and as you say it actually improves autonomy and freedom.

This is the argument for Unions. They actually increase the freedom of the worker by giving him strength through organisation that he wouldn't have standing alone.

By pretending you're free and locking yourself away with guns and a love of heavy handed policing, you are in fact a paranoid prisoner to your way of life where everyone is out to get you. What a miserable way to live.

aren't paranoid, but enjoy your freedom and privacy?

Although, I enjoy my freedom from a society that i live so I feel I should contribute in some way above and beyond taxes.

I treasure my privacy, although i think its better served by being involved in groups and organising with other citizens, which is why I'm in a Union.

Union's fight against things like invasion of privacy in the workplace, so if you have to work, organising with other workers will protect your privacy. That's the point of the comment i think, to protect things like freedom and privacy we need to organise as citizens and not be fanatically individualist.

but I view the picture of privacy in it's entirety home and work.

One other point I would make, I believe the unions will be stronger should they support privacy as a big picture issue, this includes for those people that are strong of the belief in having their guns as Second and Ninth Amendment Rights.

I believe it's the divide and conquer of the Bill of Rights strategy which have and will enable those to power that don't care about unions, or freedom and privacy for the American People as individuals or as a collective.