The New Individualism Theoretical Concept - Coursework Example

Introduction The New Individualism is a theoretical concept put forth by Anthony Elliot and Charles C. Lemert via their book, “The New Individualism:the emotional costs of globalization.” The book introduces the reader to the new concept of individualism which is witnessed in today’s world. As Jeffrey Weeks points out, “by means of characters both real and fictional, the authors portray today’s society and intend to illustrate one or other aspect of the contemporary penetration of globalization into individual lives. They live in "our plastic culture", with "hollowed out" identities, instant makeovers, body fascism and worship of an evanescent celebrity, its demeaned public language, its enforced privatism, narcissism and emotionalism.”1 In order, however to understand this whole theory, we must first begin with a basic understanding of what individualism is a concept. According to Wikipedia, individualism is at best defined as, “Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that stresses independence and self-reliance. Individualists promote the exercise of ones goals and desires, while opposing most external interference upon ones choices, whether by society, or any other group or institution. Individualism is opposed to collectivism, which stresses that communal, community, group, societal, familial or national goals should take priority over individual goals.”2 Now since Anthony Elliot and Charles C. Lemert’s theory dwells upon a new society whereby globalisation is interfering with personal choices, as such, we must clearly understand what we mean by globalisation? The United Nations ESCWA has written that globalization "is a widely-used term that can be defined in a number of different ways. When used in an economic context, it refers to the reduction and removal of barriers between national borders in order to facilitate the flow of goods, capital, and services and labour... although considerable barriers remain to the flow of labour... Globalization is not a new phenomenon. It began in the late nineteenth century, but its spread slowed during the period from the start of the First World War until the third quarter of the twentieth century. This slowdown can be attributed to the inward looking policies pursued by a number of countries in order to protect their respective industries... however, the pace of globalization picked up rapidly during the fourth quarter of the twentieth century..."3 But what is this new concept of individualism? According to the writers Anthony Elliot and Charles C. Lemert, the globalization has converted individuals to new characters who take maximum risks paying emotional prices for formulation of their place in society. For the individuals of the modern day, society is not as important as self. They do not recognize themselves as part of a social structure, because of the upcoming phenomenon of globalized nations; the individual puts his priorities and problems first and foremost. As a result of this, the social bond breaks down. John Dewey introduced the concept of new individualism in his book, “Individualism: Old and New” in 1930 and John Taylor Gatto of the Odysseus Group explains it thus “Exactly what John Dewey heralded at the onset of the twentieth century has indeed happened. Our once highly individualized nation has evolved into a centrally managed village, an agora made up of huge special interests which regard individual voices as irrelevant. The masquerade is managed by having collective agencies speak through particular human beings. Dewey said this would mark a great advance in human affairs, but the net effect is to reduce men and women to the status of functions in whatever subsystem they are placed. Public opinion is turned on and off in laboratory fashion. All this in the name of social efficiency, one of the two main goals of forced schooling.”4 As reviewed in the “An Alexander Technique Notebook”5, in Dewey’s book Individualism Old and New, written in 1930, he said (p. 97-98) that out of the industrial conferences then President Hoover had convened to deal with the depression, there should grow a permanent “Economic Council” — a “coordinating and directive council in which captains of industry and finance would meet with representatives of labor and public officials to plan the regulation of industrial activity.” This, Dewey said “would signify that we had entered constructively and voluntarily upon the road which Soviet Russia is traveling with so much attendant destruction and coercion.” Dewey would avoid the murder of bodies — by destroying people’s capacity to think. “... The chief obstacle to the creation of a type of individual whose pattern of thought and desire is enduringly marked by consensus with others, and in whom sociability is one with cooperation in all regular human associations, is the persistence of that feature of the earlier individualism which defines industry and commerce by ideas of private pecuniary profit.” (Page 44.) “The future seems to hold in store an extension of political control in the social interest.  We already have the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Reserve Board, and now the Farm Relief Board — a socialistic undertaking on a large scale sponsored by the [so-called] party of individualism.  The probabilities seem to favor the creation of more such boards in the future, in spite of all concomitant denunciations of bureaucracy and proclamations that individualism is the source of our national prosperity.” (Page 54.) According to Sam Han, who is from the Department of Sociology, City University of New York, USA, this theory and more over the book of Elliot and Lemert is an innovative approach to studying globalisation as well as the fate of individualism keeping in mind the emotions which run along with it.6 Markella B. Rutherford, in her essay, “A bibliographic essay on Individualism”7 has observed very clearly and succinctly that since the mid-twentieth century, social observers have pointed out increasingly individualistic tendencies in American culture. Of particular interest to a number of authors has been the perceived shift from 1950s conformity to the “me” generation. David Riesman’s The Lonely Crowd, published in 1950, explored the nature of American individualism and conformism. Riesman detailed a “sea change” that he saw taking place in American culture: the very character of individuals was changing from the “inner-directed” person, whose internal goals were implanted by long-standing tradition and elders, to the “other-directed” person, oriented toward the ever-changing expectations projected by peer groups and mass media. In The New Individualists, Paul Leinberger and Bruce Tucker reveal the generational transformation between the 1950s “organization men” and their children, who value self more than loyalty. Many who write about individualism in contemporary America are at least vaguely pessimistic, if not outright alarmist, about its impact on American culture. In Habits of the Heart8, Robert Bellah and others discuss how individualism has transformed aspects of American culture— from the self, to family, to civic involvement, work, religion, citizenship, and the national society. In The Hearts of Men9, Barbara Ehrenreich explores the impact of individualizing tendencies on the structure of the American family. The rise of individualism among the baby boomers is Cheryl Russell’s “master trend,” to which she attributes all manner of social problems. Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone10 provides an historical discussion of the American public’s changing levels of involvement in various civic organizations. Mary Ann Glendon discusses the ways that the overwhelming emphasis on individual rights in political discourse serves to undermine aspects of democracy. A very good example is given by Luis M. Garcia’- Mainar, when he says that, “For example, workers refuse to participate in the ideology of corporate success, now replaced by personal success and professionalism: since employees know they can be laid off whenever international corporations decide on cost cutting relocations, the labour force concentrate on improving their skills and capacities in order to better compete for future jobs. Thus individuals do not recognize themselves as part of the social context that, for example, the workplace represented for their parents, but feel free to conduct their lives without subordination to any social or political project beyond themselves. The social context that was provided by work, or a dense net of communal relations, is now being replaced by a more personally fabricated structure created through self-projects investing daily activities with meaning. This tendency to privatize the social reveals the spread into the tissue of our personal lives of neo-liberal economic doctrines produced by a globalized world that encourages individual improvement rather than contribution to the community’s welfare, with the consequent erosion of the social bond.”11 According to Luis, the centre stage is occupied by globalization. This globalization has undermined tradition and created a privatized culture where people are looking for personal solutions which are actually truly a part of the social rather than the individual. Also, social categories cannot fulfil this void since these are not really social defects so to say; they are in fact, cultural problems. This can be very well understood by Louis Mainar’s example of work whereby earlier it created social distinction and differences, but now, since information society can reach everyone therefore, it does not produce a social divide. According to Louis, this phenomenon can interestingly be noticed in movies, whereby he states, “In these New Individualism crime films the melodramatic centrality of the victim articulates the narratives fluctuation between emphasis on the social/cultural origin of problems mentioned above and attention to the helplessness of the protagonists: the personal initiative of the protagonists of crime disappears as melodrama takes over, at times leaving social problems aside and concentrating instead on the incapacity of the individual to face them.” According to Sam Han, who is from the Department of Sociology, City University of New York, USA, this theory and more over the book of Elliot and Lemert is an innovative approach to studying globalisation as well as the fate of individualism keeping in mind the emotions which run along with it.12 Conclusion From the above discussion on how individualism was first brought into the picture of human lives by sociologists to its gradual development of critical review, the psychology behind this concept has grown by leaps and bounds. What individual was during the older times, could best be summarised by saying that it was a concept of self acceptance. It can be called as a “do as you please” phenomenon where individual formed the core of the society. It was a freedom, so to say, from societal norms of forcible care about others at large. A person was given the freedom to express his anxieties and doubts before he could place the worries of the world as his foremost concern. However, with the advent of globalisation where hoards of people are competing with each other, individuals are forced to create a niche for themselves. Co-existence is becoming a race to out shine another’s talents or capabilities. Although everyone still holds the right to express oneself, it is also a kind of rage against the society’s view of a person which has its own melodrama. References 1. An Alexander Technique Notebook. 2. Annual Review of Developments in Globalization and Regional Integration in the countries of the ESCWA region. Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia. 3. Bellah, Robert N., Richard Madsen, William B. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985. 4. Ehrenreich, Barbara. The Hearts of Men: American Dreams and the Flight from Commitment. Garden City: Anchor, 1983 5. Gatto, John Taylor. The underground history of American education. The Odysseus Group. 6. Han, Sam. International Journal of Boudrillard Studies. Volume 4 No.2. 7. Individualism. Wikipedia. 8. Journal of American Studies 9. Leeks, Jeffery. “The very high price of me, me, me”. The times higher education. < http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=206536§ioncode=6> 10. Mainar, Luis M. Garcia’. “Contemporary Hollywood Crime Film and the New Individualism”. European Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000. < http://ejas.revues.org/document7650.html> 11. Rutherford, Markella B.. A Bibliographic Essay on Individualism. Read More