Chapter Eight: Navigating the Difference between Indigenous Societies and Civilization; Different Concepts of Individualism
Part Two: Different Concepts of Individualism
Readings:
Moeller, H. G. (2004). New Confucianism and the semantics of individuality. a Luhmannian analysis. Asian Philosophy, 14(1), 25-39.
Key Dilemma in Part Two:
- How do we reconcile individualism with commitments to the common good?
- These conflicts arise for seemingly any person who does not suffer from a sociopathic personality disorder.
Review of List of Navigation Strategies for Seemingly Intractable Conflicts, Differences, and Dilemmas:
Example to help us work through this dilemma:
“The challenge of finding language that is true to traumatic experience is, however, a daunting one. How can we speak about the unspeakable without attempting to render it intelligible and sayable? The paradoxes of traumatic memory may seem to defy analysis. Our ordinary concepts of time and identity cease to apply, as in the French writer Charlotte Delbo’s statement, “I died in Auschwitz, but no one knows it. (1995, 267) For months after my assault, I had to stop myself before saying (what seemed accurate at the time), “I was murdered in France last summer.” In this book…I develop and defend a view of the self as fundamentally relational—capable of being undone by violence, but also of being remade in connection with others.” (Susan J. Brison, Aftermath, p xi, 2002)
Inclusive and Exclusive Individuality (Hans-Georg Moeller):
Inclusive individuality places the self at the “center of relationships” and gives the self a sense of holistic unity.
Exclusive individuality isolates the self, as superior to relationships, and only allows partial social inclusion, depending on the functional role played by the individual. No one has a full sense of holistic unity. No one is merely a center of relationships.
The transformation from inclusive individuality to exclusive individuality has occurred globally because of the functional differentiation of modern societies.
“[N]o society can take part in functional differentiation while escaping the consequence of splitting the individual.” (Moeller 37)
This splitting of the individual into multiple social roles and functions has caused two unsolvable problems:
internally conflicted multiple selves;
homme copie—imitational person.
Is there a Post-Confucian, post-individualist, post-humanist resolution to the unsolvable problems above?
Individualism and the Meaning of Life (Gregory Baum and Etty Hillesum)
Baum and Hillesum suggest that individualism is to blame for our dread of death, life’s meaninglessness and alienation, as well as our seeking individual pleasures at the expense of others.
They recommend finding meaning from our compassionate solidarity with others. This solidarity will reduce our dread of death and our feelings of alienation.
Is individualism an evil, or should one find a balance between individualism and communitarianism?
The Self as Relational (Susan J. Brison)
Brison is sympathetic with the view that the self is relational. On this view, “[T]he self is created and sustained by others and, thus, is able to be destroyed by them.” (p. 62)
However, the autonomy of the self requires us to make choices that, at least in part, construct a unique self—against the pressures to conform to the wishes of others. In other words, to have an autonomous self, we must, at least sometimes, make choices against our relationships with others.
In speaking of her son, Brison states, “He is the embodiment of my life’s new narrative and I am more autonomous by virtue of being so intermingled with him.” (p. 66) This sounds like a description of a dangerously enmeshed relationship. How can she find autonomy here?
