The dilemma of individuality
How do we resolve the desire and need to be an individual with the equal desire and need to belong in and to groups?
We seem to live in an epoch of where, within our so-called ‘advanced societies’ we’re in perpetual conflict with ‘ourselves’. Politics, social media and other activism is surrounded by an environment of constant ugly division. We can’t even politely agree to disagree. Societies are in states of self-inflicted crisis it seems.
In other words, certainly in the eyes of many, the ‘good old days’ have gone. Respect for institutions has broken down—including respect for government, businesses, churches, family and on and on! Consequently, moral order and certainty appear to have broken down. Society is a mess. Certainly, that’s the impression in the daily churn of mass media and social commentary. But is it really that bad? Has there been a general overreaction to what’s going on?
In this piece I offer a perspective, an explanation around a central theme—namely, that we are, as societies, struggling through an era where individuality has risen as the primary, overriding moral basis for how and why societies exist and should operate. This challenges the widely held view of ‘community’ being something that is managed and controlled by hierarchical systems and institutions to which we submit, whether willingly or not.
My primary focus and starting point in this perspective is, of course, the idea of self-employment—that is, the act of individuals earning their income by being their own boss. Self-employment is my ‘bag’, my speciality. It’s a good basis for a perspective because being your own boss means that your income-earning status confronts centuries of legal, institutional and social history and structures. Self-employment is the ‘outlier’ in the world of work. As such it offers insights into broader issues.
But there is real currency to my musings on this. Just this week the federal government ‘dropped’ into parliament the specifics of its new law that will treat self-employed people as employees! That is, the government is effectively saying that individuality in the work space is to be supressed. People can’t be trusted to make decisions for themselves as to how they work and how much they are remunerated and so on. Those decisions are to be taken away from the individual and handed to institutional committees who’ll decided what is best for individuals. I’ll be writing extensively on this once I’ve analysed the proposed legislation, but first here are some rambling thoughts!
We are our own comedy
There’s a British sitcom that really tickled my funny bone. Derry Girls is the story of four teenage girls (and one hapless teenage boy) struggling as a group with their journey to adulthood during ‘The Troubles’ in Northern Ireland in the 1990s.
There’s a delightful scene where three of the girls decide to rebel: instead of wearing their school blazer to school, they’ll each wear a denim jacket. On the morning of this brave uprising the three meet in the street. Two have the school blazer, the third the denim jacket. “Where’s your denim?” asks the denim wearer. “Oh”, the other two reply, “Our Ma’s caught us and made us wear the blazers!” “Well”, says the denim wearer, “There’s no way I’m going to be an individual on my own!” and she rushes off to get her blazer.
Oh dear! Are any of us ever brave enough to be an individual, unless we have others who join us in the same ‘individuality’? Are we as humans destined to strive to be individuals while our human DNA pushes us into group conformity?
There’s the dilemma! How can we be individuals when we humans seem to be wired to live, and hopefully thrive, in groups. Being an ‘individual’ frequently means standing out, not conforming, doing your ‘own thing,’ being different, challenging the norm and seemingly not being ‘one of us’ (a group)! But as individuals we live and participate in groups: families, clubs, schools, businesses, villages, cities, regions, nations and the global community. Very few humans live as hermits in mountains caves or lock ourselves in lonely rooms!
The challenge
I attended a conference recently where one of the presentations was from a retired, highly respected politician who’s maintained an active engagement in social and related issues after his political retirement. He bemoaned the seeming disintegration of social structures, behaviours and respect for institutions. He pointed to much of the social narrative that is heavily skewed towards personal ‘entitlement.’ He made sense. But then he qualified that by declaring his long political commitment to the respect for the individual. Was he exposing a contradiction in his view of what constitutes a ‘good’ society? I don’t think so. He was actually alluding to the task and challenge of balance.
At the same conference was a Catholic priest. I was raised a Catholic and schooled through the Catholic education system. I have a long-lived appreciation of the tradition of Catholic authoritative teaching that demands adherence to Catholic dogma as the only truth. This priest intrigued me. He gave a presentation that was a broad sweep through a range of highly topical social/political issues. He made an interesting comment along the lines that ‘every person is looking for meaning in life. People find that meaning in all sorts of means and ways’. He said that his personal meaning is founded in Catholicism, but that doesn’t mean, he said, that the meanings that other people find are not legitimate. To me, here was a Catholic priest accepting that Catholicism is not the only ‘truth’ people can find. (Perhaps he is a Jesuit? I don’t know!) Assuming I’m not misinterpreting the priest, what is ‘true’, he seemed to be saying, is something that everyone will determine for themselves!
What this priest was focused on was the individual as self-defining. This is the reverse of the Catholic schooling that I had, which told me and millions of Catholic followers that the church would define you, that you didn’t need to and shouldn’t seek to define yourself outside of the prescriptions provided by the church. This doesn’t apply only to Catholicism, but to all social and other institutions and all ‘isms’. Buddhism, Maoism, Marxism and numerous others all seek to define what is ‘true’ for their followers.
The medical fraternity is obsessed with defining what medical ‘truth’ is. There’s no better instance of this than recent experience of the controversy over Covid-19 vaccines and mandated vaccinations. Individuals, globally, have been required to have Covid vaccinations based on the medical ‘truth’ of 2021-22 that vaccination would save each individual and society from the ravages of Covid-19. But, come 2023, many of those ‘truths’ have been proven wrong or at least partially wrong. And here’s the thing with science. The process of scientific discovery is supposed to be about the constant questioning of accepted ‘truth’ until a new ‘truth’ emerges. Such questioning is invariably undertaken by individuals. Breakthroughs happen, such as Einstein’s upending of accepted ‘truths’ about gravity etc. But individuals in the medical field who questioned (and continue to question) much of the Covid-19 vaccination ‘truth’ have been sanctioned by the medical establishment and institutions to the extent that they have lost their registration right/s to practise medicine.
Put the experience of Covid-19 vaccinations alongside the priest’s and the retired politician’s comments and we see again the dilemma of individuality. That is, where does individuality fit with community? Can we be individuals and yet part of society? As the Derry girl said, “I’m not going to be an individual on my own!” This neatly states the dilemma!
Society has broken down?
There’s no doubt that the social norms, behavioural expectations, structures and institutions that seemingly held society together in the past and which provided certainty and identity have seemingly collapsed. The retired politician alluded to that. However, both that same politician and the Catholic priest expressed the centrality of the individual. Again, the dilemma!
What we are witnessing, in my view, is a progressive move towards the individual being the central ‘institution’ in society, even if I’m applying a totally incorrect and inappropriate concept of ‘institution’. What I mean is that the move is towards the idea that society and societal institutions exist to serve the needs of the individual rather than the individual serving the needs of society.
This move is fraught with confusion, uncertainty and chaos. It challenges all forms of institutional authority whether it be government bureaucracy, the medical and scientific institutions, religious and related belief systems and organisations and political ideologies of all persuasions.
The challenge, however, is also to the individual. As individuals we do need and crave to have around us moral, spiritual, psychological and behavioural frameworks that we can use as templates or bouncing boards through which we find our self-definition. If the institutions that provide these templates break down, how do we develop our individual identities?
And more. To quote perhaps the most famous line from that British comedy ‘Yes Minister’, “but Minister, however would we function?” Yes indeed! How in the world can society function If the individual is not subservient to the organisational needs, instructions and authority of government and other institutions?
The dilemma compounds!
Self-employed
For me, when I write, advocate for, think about and seek to defend ‘our’ right to be self-employed, I’m very aware that I’m not simply analysing and arguing for an economic or business concept. It’s much more than that. Being self-employed, being your own boss, involves living the dilemma and facing the challenges of individuality.