In her 1959 article “Individual Autonomy and Social Structure”, Dorothy Lee evaluates the relationship between individual autonomy, the freedom to make one’s own choices in life, and social structure, the rules governing social interaction stemming from common cultural values. Lee considers the issues that arise when thinking of these two concepts as mutually exclusive, especially in Western society. While Lee explores these issues through examination of various themes within several societies, the following arguments will focus on her analysis of the distribution of labour in traditional Balinese culture. Namely, Lee argues that social structure ought to facilitate mutual respect, which allows for true individual autonomy. The key social …show more content…
She contends that society cannot emphasise individual autonomy or social structure, and that both are required in a healthy society and ought to be unified. Lee declares that “what often takes the form of permissiveness in our society exists as the freedom to be, and to find actualization; and it is found within a clearly delineated structure” (10). She emphasises that it is important to allow the individual to deduce proper action through their own interpretation of an outlined structure; the individual ought to be able to make mistakes within a guided environment. Therefore, this structure is what offers individuals the methods to seek their own path in life. Creativity and natural differences are not squandered by group responsibility; rather, they are encouraged through the imperative of all working toward a common goal based on a shared culture. Specific to Western culture, Lee emphasises that individual independence ought not to be idealised as the end goal of personal growth. This concept, known as negative freedom, was discussed heavily in lecture and highlighted as unfeasible. It is impossible for an individual to disconnect completely from his or her society and fellow mankind. For example, a lottery winner is not free of society; rather, he or she now controls a large amount of capital to be used in obtaining services from other people. In contrast, true individual autonomy, or positive freedom, derives from working with other individuals within a shared cultural upbringing. This common backdrop allows mutual understanding and respect to flourish, through which true individual autonomy can be
...itical potential from the things you say, the things you embody and the things you want. You can have holidays, but not your language. You can have a month of the year for your race, but no justice. You can have welfare, but not sovereignty. You can practice your culture up until the point where it makes people uncomfortable, or makes things inefficient.
...ni and Steinbeck draw attention to the diminishing power of an individual in a large society. By using motifs and settings, the authors explain the ability the world has to influence humans’ behaviors and lives negatively. Hosseini convinces us to remain individuals, as Steinbeck professed, and not conform to the world in which we live. As Dahli Lamma once stated, “The ultimate authority must always rest with the individual's own reason and critical analysis”. Is he correct: is it necessary for humans to make individual decisions rather than follow the in the footsteps of others?
There are numerous ethical schools of individualism and copious individualists with different perspectives on the idea of individualism. In this paper, I have selected the following ethical individualism to expose and critique: 1) ontological individualism, 2) methodological individualism, and 3) moral or political individualism.
Based on “Freedom and Individuality”, Simmel largely perceives a positive relationship between the size or growth of society and individualism to function, but proposes that the size of the society alone does not solely determine levels of individuality. He promptly delivers his thesis, saying “the larger circle encourages individual freedom, the smaller one restricts it.” (Simmel in Calhoun 2012: 376) Simmel then goes on to describe the role of individuality within society, discussing positive aspects such as freedom and fluidity, and potentially negative aspects such as the “negative freedom of no differentiation” and loss of collective consciousness/identity. As the group grows and expands, collective identity is weakened and the original pressure to conform is relieved (to an extent), allowing for a greater opportunity for individualism to thrive in an increasingly flexible environment, at the expense of certain aspects of common culture and identity. Simmel also reflects on the difficulties associated with individualism for the individual, such as increasing difficulty trying to establish and exude one’s own unique personality within such an individualistic and flexible environment. Toward
Individualism and collectivism are conflicting beliefs with the nature of humans, society, and the relationships between them, however, these ideologies are not diametrically opposing since both are essential towards balancing beliefs from becoming extremes. The first source represents the idea of collectivism and suggests that the society must focus on moving their viewpoint from ‘me’ into ‘we’ in the interest of survival and progression. This perspective presents the idea that the individual’s advantage belongs not only to the person, but to the group or society of which he or she is a part of, and that the individual’s values and goals are for the group’s “greater good.” Likewise, Karl Marx’s principle of communism emphasizes in the elimination
In the On liberty, Mill also highlights the aspect of individuality as one of the elements of well-being. John Stuart Mill points out the inherent value of individuality, since individuality is by definition the thriving of the human person through the higher pleasures. He argues that a safe society ought to attempt to promote individuality as it is the pre- requisite for creativity and diversity. Therefore Mill concludes that actions themselves don’t matter, rather the person behind the action and the action together are valuable. However on the limits to the authority of society over the individual, generally he holds that a person should be left as free to pursue his own interests as long as this does not harm the interests of others. In
The notion of individualism is extremely important in exercising the duty people have to cease from the...
One noticeable cultural difference between the society pictured in this chapter and our American society seems to be a collectivist ideology. In America we value the individual and place emphasis on distinction from the group. This causes a strong sense of competition, and leads people to take actions that would benefit themselves in spite of negative effects that may trickle to other members of the community. The culture pictured in our reading, however, seems to place greater value on family and community goals rather than the needs or wants of specific individuals.
He argues that liberty and individuality are not only related, but are inseparable. He grounds his reasoning in the utilitarian view that because man is not perfect, no opinion or life should be taken as correct or incorrect unless given a chance to be tested, and that society and individuals can only progress if these tests are allowed. Mill remarks that society is currently being dominated by an emerging conformity and mediocrity. He sees individuality as the only hope to curb this dangerous progression, and liberty as individuality’s creator and protector.
“Individualistic cultures, in the western-hemisphere, [such as the United States,] emphasize… personal identity and self-determination. Conformity is far less pervasive in individualistic societies because democratic choices and laissez-faire viewpoints are somewhat considered.”
...t as the individual seeks to become independent, successful in school or employment, and develop satisfying social relationships” (Rank, J.).
...en that is the way that one can incorporate social groups into their everyday lives, all the while maintaining their autonomy. This segues into the final point: maintaining one’s autonomy is important because one should provide their own unique input, generating various ideas and unique perspectives allows others to build onto that and ultimately advances society as a whole.
By pushing one another to do better and to live a more virtuous life, we are heading towards the greater good. One must have individual freedom in order to rationalize what the greatest amount of good is for the greater number of people. John Stuart Mill states that “If human beings are to live, rather than die—to flourish, rather than stagnate—they need to use their own minds to support their own lives.” In this, he is saying that if we are not flourishing by expressing your own thoughts, then we are stagnate and not growing. If we are stagnate and not willing to think about problems, and ideas, then we are not contributing to society. Not contributing to society can stagnate it, since no one else can think exactly like we ourselves may be able
In the end, what we learn from this article is very realistic and logical. Furthermore, it is supported with real-life examples. Culture is ordinary, each individual has it, and it is both individual and common. It’s a result of both traditional values and an individual effort. Therefore, trying to fit it into certain sharp-edged models would be wrong.
People are free to choose how they want to live; because of this choice individuals are responsible for shaping