by Daniel Troit

Created on: February 09, 2009

An individual is seen as the irreducible atom of a society. The single point upon which real-time perception pivots, the self is seen as the prime experiencer of feelings and events. Able to execute broad control over the actions of the body, the individual constitutes the origin of choice. Because of this irreducible nature, the actions of society are thought to be for the enrichment of each individual life. Society as a mere sum finds itself contingent upon the individual as a prerequisite to its existence. The individual, however, finds itself adequate for the task of survival, without need of society's assistance. It is from this logic that individualism as a philosophy was developed.

Individualism presupposes the value of the individual self above all forms of cooperative or collective organization. While recognizing the utility of collaboration, the Individualist sees it as a mere means to the ultimate goal of an increased quality of life for each individual. Far from a belief in the superiority of the personal self over other selves, the Individualist believes that the individual is subordinate to no other. This includes other selves, no matter how numerous. The Individualist, far from being a recluse, seeks the equal emancipation of all selves so that true relationships, unbridled by coercion may develop.

Not every thinker respects Individualism. To many, the idea that the desires of the majority are no greater than the desires of the one is counterintuitive. How could one person, so small and singular equal the sheer quantity and mass of greater society? The group, in being more able in its capacity to exact force must be the superior entity. Even if one were to accept the proposition that "might makes right" and that society has the license to work for the greater good against the individual, logical problems still arise.

Many collective thinkers have assumed the sovereignty of the majority because of a desire to preserve the greater good. Few have asked themselves exactly where this greater good may be. Is it in the goals of the group? Which goals? Shall every goal of every member be sought? If so, would that not dissolve the majority nature of the greater whole? If a majority group with enough matching goals does not exist, then which minority group shall rule? How will you define this group? Where are its boundaries and how might it be justified in any use force? The problem with thinking of the group as a greater unit than the individual lies in its abstract nature. It seems impossible to point to a group, but an individual is easy to find. In fact, only individuals seem to exist.

In acknowledging the value of the individual self, one is able to more accurately gauge and understand the behaviors and rights of others. The egalitarian nature of such an outlook creates new interpretations of the self that can effect the development of an identity. An individual that sees itself as the highest possible power, equal with all others recontextualizes its identity in unique ways. A respect for individuals and Individualism not only changes the behavior and attitude of a person towards others, but towards his or her self as well.

Learn more about this author, Daniel Troit.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.