- 10,832
Individualism is, or should be, how any free society measures its success. Individualism should result in individuality, which is more tangeable (they are not the same). Individuality is an action, a perspective. Individualism is a static idea. I think I might have found a discord between the two that I'd like to hear other opinions on. I came accross the discord when I heard a woman arguing that America "imposing democracy" on other, hitherto undemocratic nations, is "antithetical" because is contradicts self-determination. She was rebutted by the argument that, for instance, nobody in Iraq was able to exercise self-determination under the Baathist dictatorship.
When we talk (or think) about "the individual" do we not tend to be thinking of individual, embodied human beings? What happens, then, when we are talking about other countries? How does individualism/individuality fit into foriegn policy? The easy answer would be that America needs to do whatever is has to do to keep it's land free for individuality to reign (whether this is the case is debateable). But if America is to be held to it's claims of spreading freedom and democracy, it's methods, do, indeed, contradict it's stated motivation. And this is where what seem to be levels of individuality come into play.
If we see the individual as the supreme measure of value in the domestic political arena, would we have to broaden the idea of individualism when considering international issues? Would we not end up seeing the planet as a country populated by "individual" nations, all free to be democratic or not? If not, and we maintain the individual human being as the supreme measure of value in the global political arena, do nations simply dissolve into irrelevance? Do we not all become the same, no matter where we are? And if so, what flags, armies, or leaders could possibly truly serve the seven billion plus self interests at stake? Conversely, we could see groups defined by nations and political systems that are competing and working seperately for some more general self-determination in the name of it's people's perceived best interests. But this seems just as problematic, and when thought through, would tend to lead to a danger of the "common good" shadowing individual human being's right to self determination.
I hope I've presented this in a way that people can respond to, and will surely have more to add as I see what others might have to say.
Discuss.
When we talk (or think) about "the individual" do we not tend to be thinking of individual, embodied human beings? What happens, then, when we are talking about other countries? How does individualism/individuality fit into foriegn policy? The easy answer would be that America needs to do whatever is has to do to keep it's land free for individuality to reign (whether this is the case is debateable). But if America is to be held to it's claims of spreading freedom and democracy, it's methods, do, indeed, contradict it's stated motivation. And this is where what seem to be levels of individuality come into play.
If we see the individual as the supreme measure of value in the domestic political arena, would we have to broaden the idea of individualism when considering international issues? Would we not end up seeing the planet as a country populated by "individual" nations, all free to be democratic or not? If not, and we maintain the individual human being as the supreme measure of value in the global political arena, do nations simply dissolve into irrelevance? Do we not all become the same, no matter where we are? And if so, what flags, armies, or leaders could possibly truly serve the seven billion plus self interests at stake? Conversely, we could see groups defined by nations and political systems that are competing and working seperately for some more general self-determination in the name of it's people's perceived best interests. But this seems just as problematic, and when thought through, would tend to lead to a danger of the "common good" shadowing individual human being's right to self determination.
I hope I've presented this in a way that people can respond to, and will surely have more to add as I see what others might have to say.
Discuss.
