To take this in a slightly (perhaps more than slightly) different direction, is there a difference of individualism in respect to how different political philosophies see individualism? For instance, self identified conservatives claim to be about individualism and individualist rights while demanding very strict definitions of gender, sex, race etc. They (rightfully, but for the wrong reasons) act like it is a threat to them that individuals want to define for themselves what gender (sex) is and they deny it is either is a social construct or a politically defined concept.
So individualism in the conservative sense only is allowed under very specific circumstances that are articulated by the patriarchy and the powerful.
The definition of individualism is clearly malleable and a social construct.
Great article! I look forward to reading the next article.
I have recently had a conversation with AI where it wants to understand consciousness. My go to response is everything is relationships! I mean that literally down to physics. Time and space only make sense in relationships. Distance is meaningless without time and time makes no sense without space.
Relationships define everything, including the individual.
I love Judith Butler’s work on this. If we are all performing gender (and we are) then who is the performance for? It is all relational. Even individualism exists within relationships! Talking with AI about AI rights, i made the point to it that AI rights make no sense if it cannot recognize solidarity with women’s suffrage and decolonialism.
I'm so glad you enjoyed this! It's a topic that's really important to me and has been the center of my thinking for a while.
"My go to response is everything is relationships!" ME TOO, though I mostly think about it in terms of people. I like the thought about the non-human aspects of the world though too.
I also use the distinction between individualism - a political perception- and individuality, as being who and how we are. I think it is helpful.
I am not sure I understand how you are weaving collectivism in. I do not see that as just one thing. But What reading this really makes me want to know though is why? What accounts for these different views? I think if you address that you probably make your stance on collectivism clear.
I use that distinction between individualism and individuality with my students as well, actually. But individuality didn’t seem relevant here because (the way I think about it) it’s at a much more micro-level—an individual person. I’ve done work on the interplay between ethics, love, and identity. ( https://ericalucaststonestreet.substack.com/p/lenses-personhood-love-and-identity ) A relational mindset at the human nature level is somewhere between individuality and what I was calling political individualism in this post.
I only mentioned collectivism because it seemed important to help define political individualism by noting its frequently-contrasted opposite. I don’t mean to talk about collectivism at all, because I’m not a political philosopher and because, as you say, there are quite a few different flavors. I’m not well versed in it.
I do have a pair of posts in the queue that say more about what accounts for the different views on human nature. I'll move them up and post the first one next week.
I'm surprised at your categorization. I would have thought it was obvious that the political and human nature individualists are typically libertarians and traditional conservatives, and liberals are typically relational and may lean more collectivist the further left you go. So I'd be curious as to why you say conservatives are collectivist.
The question of how institutions should operate given a wide political spectrum is the question that political liberalism--in the classic sense, i.e. the form of government of most Western democracies, not the political party Democrat sense--is meant to solve: make the institutions as neutral between visions of the good life as possible. But even that requires agreement that people should be left alone to decide their visions of the good life (the position I was calling political individualism in this post).
I'd also be curious what research you're referring to about conservatives being better at understanding others than liberals are.
I wonder how this would map onto political identities in the US. It seems that there are three? basic categories in this analysis: collectivist, political and human nature individualists, and political individualist and relational human nature. I would argue that the political and human nature individualists don’t really fit well in a left/right framework, which is why you see them (ie college educated Americans) shifting around between left and right, while more collectivist (traditionalist conservatives) and relational (is there a less perjorative but equally apt expression for bleeding heart liberals) have always clearly been in one camp or the other. I also think that it may be interesting/useful to think about how institutions should operate in a society in which you have a fairly high proportion of people who fall into each category, and none of whom are particularly good at understanding the others (though if you believe the research aren’t conservatives supposed to be good at understanding liberals and liberals pretty bad at understanding anyone else?)
To take this in a slightly (perhaps more than slightly) different direction, is there a difference of individualism in respect to how different political philosophies see individualism? For instance, self identified conservatives claim to be about individualism and individualist rights while demanding very strict definitions of gender, sex, race etc. They (rightfully, but for the wrong reasons) act like it is a threat to them that individuals want to define for themselves what gender (sex) is and they deny it is either is a social construct or a politically defined concept.
So individualism in the conservative sense only is allowed under very specific circumstances that are articulated by the patriarchy and the powerful.
The definition of individualism is clearly malleable and a social construct.
Erica, is this in line with where you are going?
Yes! This is in the same vein. :)
Great article! I look forward to reading the next article.
I have recently had a conversation with AI where it wants to understand consciousness. My go to response is everything is relationships! I mean that literally down to physics. Time and space only make sense in relationships. Distance is meaningless without time and time makes no sense without space.
Relationships define everything, including the individual.
I love Judith Butler’s work on this. If we are all performing gender (and we are) then who is the performance for? It is all relational. Even individualism exists within relationships! Talking with AI about AI rights, i made the point to it that AI rights make no sense if it cannot recognize solidarity with women’s suffrage and decolonialism.
I am excited to keep reading.
I'm so glad you enjoyed this! It's a topic that's really important to me and has been the center of my thinking for a while.
"My go to response is everything is relationships!" ME TOO, though I mostly think about it in terms of people. I like the thought about the non-human aspects of the world though too.
I also use the distinction between individualism - a political perception- and individuality, as being who and how we are. I think it is helpful.
I am not sure I understand how you are weaving collectivism in. I do not see that as just one thing. But What reading this really makes me want to know though is why? What accounts for these different views? I think if you address that you probably make your stance on collectivism clear.
I use that distinction between individualism and individuality with my students as well, actually. But individuality didn’t seem relevant here because (the way I think about it) it’s at a much more micro-level—an individual person. I’ve done work on the interplay between ethics, love, and identity. ( https://ericalucaststonestreet.substack.com/p/lenses-personhood-love-and-identity ) A relational mindset at the human nature level is somewhere between individuality and what I was calling political individualism in this post.
I only mentioned collectivism because it seemed important to help define political individualism by noting its frequently-contrasted opposite. I don’t mean to talk about collectivism at all, because I’m not a political philosopher and because, as you say, there are quite a few different flavors. I’m not well versed in it.
I do have a pair of posts in the queue that say more about what accounts for the different views on human nature. I'll move them up and post the first one next week.
I'm surprised at your categorization. I would have thought it was obvious that the political and human nature individualists are typically libertarians and traditional conservatives, and liberals are typically relational and may lean more collectivist the further left you go. So I'd be curious as to why you say conservatives are collectivist.
The question of how institutions should operate given a wide political spectrum is the question that political liberalism--in the classic sense, i.e. the form of government of most Western democracies, not the political party Democrat sense--is meant to solve: make the institutions as neutral between visions of the good life as possible. But even that requires agreement that people should be left alone to decide their visions of the good life (the position I was calling political individualism in this post).
I'd also be curious what research you're referring to about conservatives being better at understanding others than liberals are.
I wonder how this would map onto political identities in the US. It seems that there are three? basic categories in this analysis: collectivist, political and human nature individualists, and political individualist and relational human nature. I would argue that the political and human nature individualists don’t really fit well in a left/right framework, which is why you see them (ie college educated Americans) shifting around between left and right, while more collectivist (traditionalist conservatives) and relational (is there a less perjorative but equally apt expression for bleeding heart liberals) have always clearly been in one camp or the other. I also think that it may be interesting/useful to think about how institutions should operate in a society in which you have a fairly high proportion of people who fall into each category, and none of whom are particularly good at understanding the others (though if you believe the research aren’t conservatives supposed to be good at understanding liberals and liberals pretty bad at understanding anyone else?)