Puzzle

Over the course of years, I had myself vacillating between and also reconciling the notions of individualism and collectivism. European philosophies in particular emphasize breaking from the crowd and creating one's own values. Eastern philosophies, on the other hand, term egocentrism as an obstruction to a positive outlook of humanity and also as a cause of separation between society and man.

We have witnessed mass movements in human history that turned malevolent and led to schisms, divide, and strife. Such social phenomena could have only been made possible with groupthink and uncritically plowing on part of uncritical masses. To improve upon such situations, it behooves the individual to explore possibilities, or at least to realize the possibility of possibilities. Whether it be the realm of technology, science, or society, individualism furthers. We owe many advancements to the misfits and to the renegades who opposed the mainstream views, agendas, and trends persevering in face of opposition.

On the other hand, we have the notion of collectivism, where whatever value or ideal a group adopts must be subserviently followed by the individual and there is little room for divergence or dissent. It has advantages, of course. Social values need a society to be adopted and in exchange for their currency, individual needs are met. All rise together. They have something for everybody.

In my view, eastern philosophies don't negate the individual. Buddhist philosophies, for example, recognize that an individual is a sum of many elements, and by logical extension, every individual would be different from the other as no two individuals, even identical twins, have the same influences and experiences. So, individuals are unique in their own respect. So, how they contribute to society would be different provided the society has enough room for variance.

Are values created in complete isolation? Nope. Are values, then, created in the company? Nope. In reality, it's a dance between the two. What utility or meaning would an individual's values be if it doesn't have any influence or following? Likewise, what significance would common values hold in the individual realms if they aren't flexible or personalized?

We often mistake individualism for egocentrism. Often it is a favorite ploy used by despots to resist rightful change. Egocentrism is placing any individual's needs at the center of any endeavor. It's a form of maladaptation. And often collectivism, where it has gone, has placed a group's needs or greed front and center behind the veneer of social utility, unity, or harmony.

Is individualism too prone to misuse or maladaptation? Of course! An example can be an individual's lack of interest in social activities under the justification of personal freedom. So, we need to break personal silos and see to it that our individuality is considered an asset, not a liability.