As History & experience show us groupism is always encouraged in societies all over, especially India. We are always taught to live harmoniously and collectively with people, starting with the family itself. Sacrificing one's own choices, likes & desires for the 'Greater Good' is always looked up to, expected & promoted. Many A times groupism works in favor of oppressed who are downtrodden throughout their lives. Trade Unions are the best example of this. What can't be achieved by a single worker is successfully achieved by a collective effort.
But what groupism also promotes is hiding one's inability and incompetence in a group. The meaning is obvious. But what appalls further is, that many a times, it also hides a person's individual talent. Based on personal observations I always find that like minded people coalesce together to form groups but more often that not it happens that the overall productivity or ability of the group tends to be lower than the summation of the individual efforts. The people tend to curb their natural flair so as to match the common group mentality or level. Thus, instead of benefiting & complementing from each one's skill, the output of the group becomes a dismal mediocre one...
On the other hand, Individualism is literally tabooed upon in the east. This is in stark contrast to the capitalist west where there is almost an egomaniacal mentality of individualistic ambitions, which again is an undesirable extreme.
The society and the "Collectivism Activists" tend to initially ignore, then refute and then almost try to oppose,challenge & finish off an individualist(or at least his dogma) An individualist (barring the extreme ones) believes in his own strengths, beliefs & exudes a lot of self-confidence. Though sometimes it degenerates to overconfidence which is undesirable since it can lead to complacency. He doesn't consider a group is abominable, instead he is simply self-sufficient to fulfill his/her needs or requirements. An individualistic person doesnt consider himself the king of the world and neither does he think that the world exists solely for him as falsely spread by the neo-collectivists. Instead his relationship with the world is more of a symbiotic one; i.e fulfilling the needs required in a way such that it is mutually conducive. It means that the individualist believes that the world functions the way it does because it has to and both the producers and consumers are equally necessary for the world to function in a synergistic way. This individualistic mentality is personified by the character Howard Roark in Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead". Despite being a hardcore individualist, Roark never refuses to help anyone, including his adversaries. Thus, he cant be termed as selfish or egotistical by any stretch of imagination.
Perhaps this sense of independence and self-confidence is what the protagonists of Groupism can't digest. The fear of not able to accept their shortcomings & weak will to stand up openly for their cause is the reason why certain (full of such people and collectively mediocre) groups always target individualism.
Of course this is the case where the individualist is not, in reality, an egotistic jerk who just tries to justify a false sense of self appraisal and vanity.
It may seem a direct antithesis to the age old adage- "Man is a social animal". But this is not so. There is a need to look deeper & not in a cursory way, because the struggle between Collectivism and Individualism is the real battle based on the true essence of human nature, It is a battle of will.
--
J
Posts
