All for one or one for all
“One needs to cultivate the spirit of sacrificing the little me to achieve the benefits of the big me” (Chinese saying, Page 155). America has gone from sacrificing oneself for the good of others, to sacrificing others for the good of oneself. Charles Darwin had long predicted this phenomenon and coined it as the “survival of the fittest.” By definition, it is “a 19th century concept of human society, inspired by the principle of natural selection, postulating that those who are eliminated in the struggle for existence are the unfit” (“Survival of the fittest”, Dictionary.com). The American society, once based on collectivism, has changed drastically and is now based on individualism. The shift can be easily shown through works of literature, art, and in the everyday actions of the ones around us. There was once an atmosphere of humility and love, the atmosphere transformed into a black hole of of arrogance and hate. There is no more assisting those who need more help, but instead throwing them to the nearest lion to get eaten while you move higher up on the totem pole. Are you being cradled? Or are you making your way to the top at any cost? It’s the survival of the fittest, will you be left behind?
The art of collectivism has been instilled in our minds since the very beginnings of society. For instance, in the Bible, Jesus Christ himself gave up his life on the cross for the well-being of those around him. Other verses in the bible contribute to the same idea that you should treat everyone as your family and do for them as you would want done unto yourself. “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because o...
... middle of paper ...
...society must be voluntary only” (Social Darwinism in American Thought, Hofstadter, 50). America is the place to go to make your dreams come true. As an American, you develop the get-more-want-more phenomenon. This means that no matter how much you have, you will never be satisfied. Are you the type to make others dreams come true, or are you the type to go for your dreams at any cost? Do you know who you are, or did you not realize it until you read this essay? There’s nothing wrong with being either one, individual or collective. We tend to go with the more socially acceptable option because we are so obsessed with what the majority thinks that there is not even a split second when we get to decide for ourselves. The next time you wake up in the morning, look in the mirror and decide. Decide who you want to be. Individualist or collectivist, which one are you?
The world is divided up into numerous things: Countries, states, cities, communities, etc. However, when looking at the big scope of things, one can group the vast amount of people into a society. This society is where the majority lie in the scheme of things - in other words, the common people. Individuals do exist in this society, but they are scarce in a world of conformism. Society’s standards demands an individual to conform, and if the individual refuses they are pushed down by society.
Both social darwinism and social gospel are ideologies surrounding the economics of urban and industrialization of the 19th century. Both of these were processes on the wealthy, and exactly how they would deal with poor and working class individuals. However, the specific execution on how these were done, as well as the goal were vastly different. Social Darwinism, just like Evolutionary Darwinism, really means survival of the fittest. The strongest survive and the weakest stay weak and eventually die. Relating this theory to economics; Social Darwinism is when a wealthy person keeps his money for him and his kin. Said person usually holds an attitude of, “the rich should get richer and the poor should stay poor.” On the other side of the economic
The word collectivism often makes people cringe. Overall, there is a general fear of not being able to make personal decisions in America. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, collectivism can be defined as; emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity (“Collectivism”). In Anthem, Ayn Rand describes an extreme collectivist society. Although Anthem’s society seems extremely surreal, aspects of its collectivist society closely mirror today’s society.
In “Habits Of The Heart” Bellah et al write that “they attempt to follow Tocqueville and call it individualism”. This they say is the first language in which Americans tend to think about their lives, values independence and self-reliance above all else (Viii). Americans separate work, family and community, when in fact, these worlds must be combined. We are hiding in such "lifestyle enclaves," our isolated existence limits our ability to relate ourselves to a broader community. The virtue of community interaction lies in its ability to provide meaning to the frustrating mechanisms of politics and combat the "inevitable loneliness of the separate self" (Bellah et. al., 190).
...bol of individualism. As reason defines, it’s sensible to define individuals, individually; as separate entities. Collectivism, on the other hand, undermines this principle. Ironically, this lack of reason is exactly what allows for it to achieve political and societal success—by utilizing the undefeatable irrationality.
The theory of Social Darwinism stems from the idea that the human species can progress by following the principal of Charles Darwin’s natural selection, in which he states that plants and animals that can adapt to changes in their environment are able to survive and reproduce, while those that cannot adapt will die. Social Darwinists applied this biological concept to social, political and economic issues, which created the “survival of the fittest” attitude, as well as competition and inequality between social groups. This paper will discuss some of the proponents of this theory, the results of their interpretation and application of the theory, and why this theory no longer holds a prominent position in Anthropological theory.
People in American society have their own views about individualism in our country. They choose who they are and what they want to become in the future. Because of this, there are some pros to American Individualism. For example, Edgar Allen Poe was a poet who expresses how he felt within his poetry. His poetry was kind of dark and twisted and is actually a little bit confusing to understand. This is a good example of Individualism because he showed what kind of man he was and troubles he was facing through his writing. In his day in age people were not use to authors writing in such a style that he did. He would get judged pretty harshly, but it did not stop him from writing. In one of Poe’s short stories, “The Raven” the man was grieving about his dead wife. He went into a deep darkness mourning about his wife; wondering, fearing, and doubting about what had happened to her (Poe468). This explains pros of Individualism because he expressed exactly how he felt about her dying. He got to express his feelings without being put down. Being an American citizen he got to use his right of having freedom of speech, which everyone should not be afraid of doing. This shows collectivism because it showed how he wasn’t afraid to express his individuality even when numerous people were making fun of him.
The ideal concept of American society is one in which all of the citizens are treated equal in all every realm and situation. Class, race or gender does not divide the utopian America; everyone is afforded the same opportunities and chances for success. In this chimerical state Americans are able to go as far as their dreams allow and with hard work and perseverance any thing is possible. Many Americans subscribe to this pluralist view of the Country, believing that within our democratic system it is the majority who maintains control and sets policy. Unfortunately this idyllic country does not exist nor has it ever existed. America is made up of distinct social classes and the movement within those classes is for the most part, limited to the various classes in the middle where the lines of demarcation are blurred. Although the majority of the Country's population would attest to the myth that America is a classless society, the distinctions definitely exist and influence the entire life scope of most Americans. Housing, health care, education, career prospects and social status are all dependent on the amount of wealth one has and their class standing. Our system needs the built in inequities of the class system in order to perpetuate itself and the upper class needs to have their interests as the dominant determiner of corporate and governmental power and policy.
The concept of Social Darwinism was a widely accepted theory in the nineteenth-century. Various intellectual, and political figures from each side of the political spectrum grasped the theory and interpreted it in various ways. In this paper, we will discuss three different nineteenth-century thinkers and their conception of Social Darwinism. The conservative, Heinrich von Treitschke, and liberal Herbert Spencer both gave arguments on the usefulness of competition between people on a global scale. The anarchist, Peter Kropotkin, refuted the belief of constant competition among members of the same species and emphasized mutual aid.
Since the beginning of time, people have been trying to become individuals and stand out as unique beings. During the foundation of the colonies, individuals were focused on preserving their religious beliefs. As slavery became more predominant, the Civil War era fought to give black people their identity back. In the 1800s and 1900s, the individual initiative shifted from giving a group of people identity to individuals fighting for their own personal beliefs. In today’s society, individualism has been diminished by the collapse of the economy, forcing people to live with their parents for longer periods of time. As the economy continues to grow again individualism is making strides in a positive direction.
“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.”
Collectivism and individualism, both have a fair share of issues. The articles that exemplify both collectivism and individuality are “1984”, “Anthem” and a poem called “Unknown Citizen”. Collectivism and individualism have an even amount of dilemmas, both collectivism and individualism come from totally different perspectives. The Struggles associated with a collectivism is that everything, every action, every thought, every person acts as a whole in unison, so there isn’t any room for different opinions and thoughts, as for an individualist society people have to sacrifice themselves both physically, mentally and overcome their
Does one’s life belong to himself or to the community/society he lives in? Well, perspective varies from person to person. If you go and take private data from people you meet and analyze the data, you would see the diversity in opinions. Those opinions have their distinct evidence to back standout. Technically, every argument being raised can be expressed as a two-way street. It’s true that more or less than half the people you obtain the data from likely to choose individualism and the rest would likely to choose collectivism for public good; but, what really matters is which group has more weight on their side, and by weight, I mean the individual’s capability in debugging the context the finest way possible and demonstrating the understanding
“Altruism — the sacrifice of self to others. This tied man irrevocably to other men and left him nothing but a choice of pain: his own pain borne for the sake of others or pain inflicted upon others for the sake of self.” This dramatic definition of altruism, from The Soul of an Individualist by Ayn Rand, provides a backdrop for similar ideologies. Along the same philosophical vein, one can examine the principles of collectivism, a way of life that puts priority on a group instead of a single member. Individualism, on the other hand, is the complete rejection of these two ideas and a way of thinking that stresses living on one’s own terms instead of being dictated to by a group. As shown
Collectivism is the human propensity to agglomerate, to stick together, to assemble, the herd instincts and the group behaviours.