Individualism versus Community

As an American, I was raised on a steady diet of individualism and what it brings to the world.  At the same time, my upbringing in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints highlighted how community can and does benefit everyone involved.   Unfortunately, these two forces exist in opposition.  Where is the line drawn between them?  More specifically, at what point do the costs of individualism outweigh its benefits?

As with most dichotomies, both sides carry unique pros and cons.   Individualism is often associated with creativity, a push for change or growth, and a certain vibrancy hard to find elsewhere.   On the other hand, community brings stability and security, along with the comfort of belonging.   I’d hazard a guess that we all agree both sets of qualities are worth pursuing.  That said, both sides of this equation also have their darker elements.  When individualism is taken to the extreme, you get the Unabomber.  Community taken to the extreme means a Jonestown.   The sweet spot lies somewhere in the middle

Finding that balance is a never-ending assessment carried out within a community.   I stress that it is the community that must decide on its accepted level of individualism.   After all.  the community owns the ultimate power over the individual with the threat of ostracism.  This creates an interesting balancing of scales, because the individual can threaten the whole structure of the community through a single action.  That particular equation generally goes one way—an individual can have an outsize negative impact far easier than a positive one.   Mass shooters, suicide bombers, and the who guy who poisoned random pill bottles can change things far more dramatically for a community than a single positive action.

The battle between individualism and community boils down to two facts.  The long term favors the community because of its stability and its ability to drive out individuals that threaten the status quo beyond accepted levels.  Short-term favors the individual, whose actions can sometimes cause enough disruption to rock a community and force change that might otherwise not occur.  If the action is destructive enough, the community might fracture along fault lines or newly discovered tribal loyalty.  The community’s ability to resist this depends on its resiliency, which I think stems from its tolerance of individualism within its structure.  A community willing to accept the eccentrics and oddballs within its circle is one more ready to ride out seismic change brought about by the same individuals.

What is the point of this diatribe?  It’s me trying to understand potential solutions to the excessive polarization that my country faces today.  I have no studies or evidence beyond my own observations from which to draw conclusions, but I feel that the rampant individualism at the heart of most Americans was always destined to end this way.  The increased Balkanization of American community driven by extremists on the fringe threatens the stability that community should offer its citizenry.  As that overarching community gets torn into smaller and smaller pieces, what security it once offered is sacrificed on the altar of individualism.

America needs a reset of its community.  This goes beyond Republican versus Democrat, minority versus white, or any other arbitrary difference we might assign to fellow Americans.  It’s more fundamental than that.  It’s the willingness to go out of one’s way to help a neighbor.  It’s the willingness to take joy in another success, even at the expense of one’s own.  It’s the desire to see a more inclusive “us” instead of focusing hostility on a “them”. 

Let’s strive for a world where it’s easier to have the word “we” on our lips instead of “I”.