Recent from talks
Contribute something
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Individualism
View on Wikipedia| Part of a series on |
| Individualism |
|---|
Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, and social outlook that emphasizes the worth or central role of the individual.[1][2][3][4] Individualists promote realizing one's goals and desires, valuing independence and self-reliance, and advocating that the interests of the individual should gain precedence over the state or a social group, while opposing external interference upon one's own interests by society or institutions such as the government.[5] Individualism makes the individual its focus,[3] and so starts "with the fundamental premise that the human individual is of primary importance in the struggle for liberation".[6]
Individualism represents one kind of sociocultural perspective and is often defined in contrast to other perspectives, such as communitarianism, collectivism and corporatism.[7][8]
Individualism is also associated with artistic and bohemian interests and lifestyles, where there is a tendency towards self-creation and experimentation as opposed to tradition or popular mass opinions and behaviors,[5][9] and it is associated with humanist philosophical positions and ethics.[10][11] "Individualism" has also been used as a term denoting "[t]he quality of being an individual; individuality", related to possessing "[a]n individual characteristic; a quirk".[5]
Etymology
[edit]In the English language, the word individualism was first introduced as a pejorative by utopian socialists such as the Owenites in the late 1830s, although it is unclear if they were influenced by Saint-Simonianism or came up with it independently.[12] A more positive use of the term in Britain came to be used with the writings of James Elishama Smith, a millenarian-turned-socialist and Christian Israelite. Although an early follower of Robert Owen, he eventually rejected Owen's collective idea of property and found in individualism a "universalism" that allowed for the development of the "original genius". Without individualism, Smith argued that individuals cannot amass property to increase one's happiness.[12] William Maccall, another Unitarian preacher and probably an acquaintance of Smith, came somewhat later, although influenced by John Stuart Mill, Thomas Carlyle and German Romanticism, to the same positive conclusions in his 1847 work Elements of Individualism.[13]
Individual
[edit]An individual is a person or any specific object in a collection. In the 15th century and earlier, and also today within the fields of statistics and metaphysics, individual means "indivisible", typically describing any numerically singular thing, but sometimes meaning "a person" as in "the problem of proper names". From the 17th century on, individual indicates separateness, as in individualism.[14] Individuality is the state or quality of being an individuated being; a person separated from everything with unique character by possessing their own needs, goals, and desires in comparison to other people.[15]
Individuation principle
[edit]The principle of individuation, or principium individuationis,[16] describes the manner in which a thing is identified as distinguished from other things.[17] For Carl Jung, individuation is a process of transformation, whereby the personal and collective unconscious is brought into consciousness (by means of dreams, active imagination or free association to take examples) to be assimilated into the whole personality. It is a completely natural process necessary for the integration of the psyche to take place.[18] Jung considered individuation to be the central process of human development.[19] In L'individuation psychique et collective, Gilbert Simondon developed a theory of individual and collective individuation in which the individual subject is considered as an effect of individuation rather than a cause. Thus, the individual atom is replaced by a never-ending ontological process of individuation. Individuation is an always incomplete process, always leaving a "pre-individual" left-over, itself making possible future individuations.[20] The philosophy of Bernard Stiegler draws upon and modifies the work of Gilbert Simondon on individuation and also upon similar ideas in Friedrich Nietzsche and Sigmund Freud. For Stiegler, "the I, as a psychic individual, can only be thought in relationship to we, which is a collective individual. The I is constituted in adopting a collective tradition, which it inherits and in which a plurality of I's acknowledge each other's existence."[21]
Individualism and society
[edit]Individualism holds that a person taking part in society attempts to learn and discover what their own interests are on a personal basis, without a presumed following of the interests of a societal structure (an individualist need not be an egoist). The individualist does not necessarily follow one particular philosophy. They may create an amalgamation of elements of many philosophies, based on personal interests in particular aspects that they find of use. On a societal level, the individualist participates on a personally structured political and moral ground. Independent thinking and opinion is a necessary trait of an individualist. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, claims that his concept of general will in The Social Contract is not the simple collection of individual wills and that it furthers the interests of the individual (the constraint of law itself would be beneficial for the individual, as the lack of respect for the law necessarily entails, in Rousseau's eyes, a form of ignorance and submission to one's passions instead of the preferred autonomy of reason).
Individualism versus collectivism is a common dichotomy in cross-cultural research. Global comparative studies have found that the world's cultures vary in the degree to which they emphasize individual autonomy, freedom and initiative (individualistic traits), respectively conformity to group norms, maintaining traditions and obedience to in-group authority (collectivistic traits).[22] Cultural differences between individualism and collectivism are differences in degrees, not in kind.[23] Cultural individualism is strongly correlated with GDP per capita[24] and venture capital investments.[25] The cultures of economically developed regions such as Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea,[26][27][28] North America and Western Europe are the most individualistic in the world. Middle income regions such as Eastern Europe, South America and mainland East Asia have cultures which are neither very individualistic nor very collectivistic. The most collectivistic cultures in the world are from economically developing regions such as the Middle East and Northern Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, South and South-East Asia, Central Asia and Central America.[29][30][31] Against this background, a number of prominent authors from various disciplines (e.g., Louis Dumont, Geert Hofstede, Anthony Giddens, Zygmunt Bauman, Ronald Inglehart) have supported the influential thesis that the modernization of a society goes hand in hand with an increasing degree of individualization. However, this thesis has also found its critics, who point out, among other things, that the cultural-historical development of individualism from antiquity to the present has not proceeded in a straight line, that some societies with a more collectivist orientation are nevertheless highly modernized and that the concepts of individualism, collectivism and modernity lack conceptual clarity so that an appropriately differentiated analysis of the alleged connection is still lacking.[32][33]
An earlier analysis by Ruth Benedict in her book The Chrysanthemum and the Sword states that societies and groups can differ in the extent to which they are based upon predominantly "self-regarding" (individualistic, and/or self-interested) behaviors, rather than "other-regarding" (group-oriented, and group, or society-minded) behaviors. Ruth Benedict made a distinction, relevant in this context, between guilt societies (e.g. medieval Europe) with an "internal reference standard" and shame societies (e.g. Japan, "bringing shame upon one's ancestors") with an "external reference standard", where people look to their peers for feedback on whether an action is acceptable or not.[34]
Individualism is often contrasted either with totalitarianism or with collectivism,[8] but there is a spectrum of behaviors at the societal level ranging from highly individualistic societies through mixed societies to collectivist.[35][36]
A 2022 study published by the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization indicates that the individualistic societies have higher levels of charitable giving, providing a response to critics of individualism and capitalism. The authors propose that individualism increases charity through direct mechanisms (self-interested giving) and indirect mechanisms (reinforcing economic freedom).[37] The findings support classical liberal arguments that individualism has virtues, aligning with the views of thinkers like Adam Smith and David Hume.
Competitive individualism
[edit]According to an Oxford Dictionary, "competitive individualism" in sociology is "the view that achievement and non-achievement should depend on merit. Effort and ability are regarded as prerequisites of success. Competition is seen as an acceptable means of distributing limited resources and rewards.
Methodological individualism
[edit]Methodological individualism is the view that phenomena can only be understood by examining how they result from the motivations and actions of individual agents.[38] In economics, people's behavior is explained in terms of rational choices, as constrained by prices and incomes. The economist accepts individuals' preferences as givens. Becker and Stigler provide a forceful statement of this view:
On the traditional view, an explanation of economic phenomena that reaches a difference in tastes between people or times is the terminus of the argument: the problem is abandoned at this point to whoever studies and explains tastes (psychologists? anthropologists? phrenologists? sociobiologists?). On our preferred interpretation, one never reaches this impasse: the economist continues to search for differences in prices or incomes to explain any differences or changes in behavior.[39]
Political individualism
[edit]"With the abolition of private property, then, we shall have true, beautiful, healthy Individualism. Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things, and the symbols for things. One will live. To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all."
Individualists are chiefly concerned with protecting individual autonomy against obligations imposed by social institutions (such as the state or religious morality). For L. Susan Brown, "Liberalism and anarchism are two political philosophies that are fundamentally concerned with individual freedom yet differ from one another in very distinct ways. Anarchism shares with liberalism a radical commitment to individual freedom while rejecting liberalism's competitive property relations."[6]
Civil libertarianism is a strain of political thought that supports civil liberties, or which emphasizes the supremacy of individual rights and personal freedoms over and against any kind of authority (such as a state, a corporation and social norms imposed through peer pressure, among others).[40] Civil libertarianism is not a complete ideology; rather, it is a collection of views on the specific issues of civil liberties and civil rights. Because of this, a civil libertarian outlook is compatible with many other political philosophies, and civil libertarianism is found on both the right and left in modern politics.[41] For scholar Ellen Meiksins Wood, "there are doctrines of individualism that are opposed to Lockean individualism [...] and non-Lockean individualism may encompass socialism".[42]
British historians such as Emily Robinson, Camilla Schofield, Florence Sutcliffe-Braithwaite and Natalie Thomlinson have argued that Britons were keen about defining and claiming their individual rights, identities and perspectives by the 1970s, demanding greater personal autonomy and self-determination and less outside control, angrily complaining that the establishment was withholding it. Historians argue that this shift in concerns helped cause Thatcherism and was incorporated into Thatcherism's appeal.[43]
Anarchism
[edit]| Part of a series on |
| Anarchism |
|---|
Within anarchism, individualist anarchism represents several traditions of thought within the anarchist movement that emphasize the individual and their will over any kinds of external determinants such as groups, society, traditions and ideological systems.[44][45] Individualist anarchism is not a single philosophy but refers to a group of individualistic philosophies that sometimes are in conflict.
In 1793, William Godwin, who has often[46] been cited as the first anarchist, wrote Political Justice, which some consider to be the first expression of anarchism.[47][48] Godwin, a philosophical anarchist, from a rationalist and utilitarian basis opposed revolutionary action and saw a minimal state as a present "necessary evil" that would become increasingly irrelevant and powerless by the gradual spread of knowledge.[47][49] Godwin advocated individualism, proposing that all cooperation in labour be eliminated on the premise that this would be most conducive with the general good.[50][51]
An influential form of individualist anarchism called egoism,[52] or egoist anarchism, was expounded by one of the earliest and best-known proponents of individualist anarchism, the German Max Stirner.[53] Stirner's The Ego and Its Own, published in 1844, is a founding text of the philosophy.[53] According to Stirner, the only limitation on the rights of the individual is their power to obtain what they desire,[54] without regard for God, state, or morality.[55] To Stirner, rights were spooks in the mind, and he held that society does not exist but "the individuals are its reality".[56] Stirner advocated self-assertion and foresaw unions of egoists, non-systematic associations continually renewed by all parties' support through an act of will,[57] which Stirner proposed as a form of organization in place of the state.[58] Egoist anarchists claim that egoism will foster genuine and spontaneous union between individuals.[59] Egoist anarchism has inspired many interpretations of Stirner's philosophy. It was re-discovered and promoted by German philosophical anarchist and LGBT activist John Henry Mackay.
Josiah Warren is widely regarded as the first American anarchist[60] and The Peaceful Revolutionist, the four-page weekly paper he edited during 1833, was the first anarchist periodical published.[61] For American anarchist historian Eunice Minette Schuster, "[i]t is apparent [...] that Proudhonian Anarchism was to be found in the United States at least as early as 1848 and that it was not conscious of its affinity to the Individualist Anarchism of Josiah Warren and Stephen Pearl Andrews. [...] William B. Greene presented this Proudhonian Mutualism in its purest and most systematic form".[62] Henry David Thoreau was an important early influence in individualist anarchist thought in the United States and Europe.[63] Thoreau was an American author, poet, naturalist, tax resister, development critic, surveyor, historian, philosopher and leading transcendentalist, who is best known for his book Walden, a reflection upon simple living in natural surroundings, and his essay Civil Disobedience, an argument for individual resistance to civil government in moral opposition to an unjust state. Later, Benjamin Tucker fused Stirner's egoism with the economics of Warren and Proudhon in his eclectic influential publication Liberty.
From these early influences, anarchism and especially individualist anarchism was related to the issues of love and sex. In different countries, this attracted a small but diverse following of bohemian artists and intellectuals,[64] free love and birth control advocates,[65][66] individualist naturists nudists as in anarcho-naturism,[67][68][69] freethought and anti-clerical activists[70] as well as young anarchist outlaws in what came to be known as illegalism and individual reclamation,[71][72] especially within European individualist anarchism and individualist anarchism in France. These authors and activists included Oscar Wilde, Émile Armand, Han Ryner, Henri Zisly, Renzo Novatore, Miguel Giménez Igualada, Adolf Brand and Lev Chernyi among others. In his important essay The Soul of Man Under Socialism from 1891, Wilde defended socialism as the way to guarantee individualism and so he saw that "[w]ith the abolition of private property, then, we shall have true, beautiful, healthy Individualism. Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things, and the symbols for things. One will live. To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all".[73] For anarchist historian George Woodcock, "Wilde's aim in The Soul of Man Under Socialism is to seek the society most favorable to the artist. [...] for Wilde art is the supreme end, containing within itself enlightenment and regeneration, to which all else in society must be subordinated. [...] Wilde represents the anarchist as aesthete".[74] Woodcock finds that "[t]he most ambitious contribution to literary anarchism during the 1890s was undoubtedly Oscar Wilde The Soul of Man Under Socialism" and finds that it is influenced mainly by the thought of William Godwin.[74]
Autarchism
[edit]Autarchism promotes the principles of individualism, the moral ideology of individual liberty and self-reliance whilst rejecting compulsory government and supporting the elimination of government in favor of ruling oneself to the exclusion of rule by others. Robert LeFevre, recognized as an autarchist by anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard,[75] distinguished autarchism from anarchy, whose economics he felt entailed interventions contrary to freedom in contrast to his own laissez-faire economics of the Austrian School.[76]
Liberalism
[edit]| Part of a series on |
| Liberalism |
|---|
Liberalism is the belief in the importance of individual freedom. This belief is widely accepted in the United States, Europe, Australia and other Western nations, and was recognized as an important value by many Western philosophers throughout history, in particular since the Enlightenment. It is often rejected by collectivist ideas such as in Abrahamic or Confucian societies, although Taoists were and are known to be individualists.[77] The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote praising "the idea of a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed".[78]
Liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejects many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. John Locke and Montesquieu are often credited with the philosophical foundations of classical liberalism, a political ideology inspired by the broader liberal movement. Locke wrote that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."[79]
In the 17th century, liberal ideas began to influence European governments in nations such as the Netherlands, Switzerland, England and Poland, but they were strongly opposed, often by armed might, by those who favored absolute monarchy and established religion. In the 18th century, the first modern liberal state was founded without a monarch or a hereditary aristocracy in the United States of America.[80] The US Declaration of Independence includes the words which echo Locke that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."[81]
Liberalism comes in many forms. According to John N. Gray, the essence of liberalism is toleration of different beliefs and of different ideas as to what constitutes a good life.[82]
Philosophical individualism
[edit]Egoist anarchism
[edit]
Egoist anarchism is a school of anarchist thought that originated in the philosophy of Max Stirner, a 19th-century Hegelian philosopher whose "name appears with familiar regularity in historically orientated surveys of anarchist thought as one of the earliest and best-known exponents of individualist anarchism."[53] According to Stirner, the only limitation on the rights of the individual is their power to obtain what they desire,[54] without regard for God, state, or morality.[55] Stirner advocated self-assertion and foresaw unions of egoists, non-systematic associations continually renewed by all parties' support through an act of will[57] which Stirner proposed as a form of organisation in place of the state.[58]
Egoist anarchists argue that egoism will foster genuine and spontaneous union between individuals.[59] Egoism has inspired many interpretations of Stirner's philosophy, but it has also gone beyond Stirner within anarchism. It was re-discovered and promoted by German philosophical anarchist and LGBT activist John Henry Mackay. John Beverley Robinson wrote an essay called "Egoism" in which he states that "Modern egoism, as propounded by Stirner and Nietzsche, and expounded by Ibsen, Shaw and others, is all these; but it is more. It is the realization by the individual that they are an individual; that, as far as they are concerned, they are the only individual."[83] Stirner and Nietzsche, who exerted influence on anarchism despite its opposition, were frequently compared by French "literary anarchists" and anarchist interpretations of Nietzschean ideas appear to have also been influential in the United States.[84]
Ethical egoism
[edit]Ethical egoism, also called simply egoism,[85] is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people do only act in their self-interest. Ethical egoism also differs from rational egoism which holds merely that it is rational to act in one's self-interest. However, these doctrines may occasionally be combined with ethical egoism.
Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents have an obligation to help and serve others. Egoism and altruism both contrast with ethical utilitarianism, which holds that a moral agent should treat one's self (also known as the subject) with no higher regard than one has for others (as egoism does, by elevating self-interests and "the self" to a status not granted to others), but that one also should not (as altruism does) sacrifice one's own interests to help others' interests, so long as one's own interests (i.e. one's own desires or well-being) are substantially-equivalent to the others' interests and well-being. Egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism are all forms of consequentialism, but egoism and altruism contrast with utilitarianism, in that egoism and altruism are both agent-focused forms of consequentialism (i.e. subject-focused or subjective), but utilitarianism is called agent-neutral (i.e. objective and impartial) as it does not treat the subject's (i.e. the self's, i.e. the moral "agent's") own interests as being more or less important than if the same interests, desires, or well-being were anyone else's.
Ethical egoism does not require moral agents to harm the interests and well-being of others when making moral deliberation, e.g. what is in an agent's self-interest may be incidentally detrimental, beneficial, or neutral in its effect on others. Individualism allows for others' interest and well-being to be disregarded or not as long as what is chosen is efficacious in satisfying the self-interest of the agent. Nor does ethical egoism necessarily entail that in pursuing self-interest one ought always to do what one wants to do, e.g. in the long term the fulfilment of short-term desires may prove detrimental to the self. Fleeting pleasance then takes a back seat to protracted eudaemonia. In the words of James Rachels, "[e]thical egoism [...] endorses selfishness, but it doesn't endorse foolishness."[86]
Ethical egoism is sometimes the philosophical basis for support of libertarianism or individualist anarchism as in Max Stirner, although these can also be based on altruistic motivations.[87] These are political positions based partly on a belief that individuals should not coercively prevent others from exercising freedom of action.
Existentialism
[edit]Existentialism is a term applied to the work of a number of 19th- and 20th-century philosophers who generally held, despite profound doctrinal differences,[88][89] that the focus of philosophical thought should be to deal with the conditions of existence of the individual person and their emotions, actions, responsibilities, and thoughts.[90][91] The early 19th century philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, posthumously regarded as the father of existentialism,[92][93] maintained that the individual solely has the responsibilities of giving one's own life meaning and living that life passionately and sincerely,[94][95] in spite of many existential obstacles and distractions including despair, angst, absurdity, alienation and boredom.[96]
Subsequent existential philosophers retain the emphasis on the individual, but differ in varying degrees on how one achieves and what constitutes a fulfilling life, what obstacles must be overcome, and what external and internal factors are involved, including the potential consequences of the existence[97][98] or non-existence of God.[99][100] Many existentialists have also regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophy in both style and content as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience.[101][102] Existentialism became fashionable after World War II as a way to reassert the importance of human individuality and freedom.[103]
Nietzsche's concept of the superman is closely related to the idea of individualism and the pursuit of one's own unique path and potential.[104]
Freethought
[edit]Freethought holds that individuals should not accept ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason. Thus, freethinkers strive to build their opinions on the basis of facts, scientific inquiry and logical principles, independent of any logical fallacies or intellectually limiting effects of authority, confirmation bias, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianism, tradition, urban legend and all other dogmas. Regarding religion, freethinkers hold that there is insufficient evidence to scientifically validate the existence of supernatural phenomena.[105]
Humanism
[edit]Humanism is a perspective common to a wide range of ethical stances that attaches importance to human dignity, concerns, and capabilities, particularly rationality. Although the word has many senses, its meaning comes into focus when contrasted to the supernatural or to appeals to authority.[106][107] Since the 19th century, humanism has been associated with an anti-clericalism inherited from the 18th-century Enlightenment philosophes. 21st century Humanism tends to strongly endorse human rights, including reproductive rights, gender equality,[108] social justice, and the separation of church and state. The term covers organized non-theistic religions, secular humanism, and a humanistic life stance.[109]
Hedonism
[edit]Philosophical hedonism is a meta-ethical theory of value which argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good and pain is the only intrinsic bad.[110] The basic idea behind hedonistic thought is that pleasure (an umbrella term for all inherently likable emotions) is the only thing that is good in and of itself or by its very nature. This implies evaluating the moral worth of character or behavior according to the extent that the pleasure it produces exceeds the pain it entails.
Libertinism
[edit]A libertine is one devoid of most moral restraints, which are seen as unnecessary or undesirable, especially one who ignores or even spurns accepted morals and forms of behaviour sanctified by the larger society.[111][112] Libertines place value on physical pleasures, meaning those experienced through the senses. As a philosophy, libertinism gained new-found adherents in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, particularly in France and Great Britain. Notable among these were John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester and the Marquis de Sade. During the Baroque era in France, there existed a freethinking circle of philosophers and intellectuals who were collectively known as libertinage érudit and which included Gabriel Naudé, Élie Diodati and François de La Mothe Le Vayer.[113][114] The critic Vivian de Sola Pinto linked John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester's libertinism to Hobbesian materialism.[115]
Objectivism
[edit]Objectivism is a system of philosophy created by philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand which holds that reality exists independent of consciousness; human beings gain knowledge rationally from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic; the moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest.[116] Rand thinks the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure laissez-faire capitalism; and the role of art in human life is to transform man's widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form – a work of art – that he can comprehend and to which he can respond emotionally. Objectivism celebrates man as his own hero, "with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."[117]
Philosophical anarchism
[edit]
Philosophical anarchism is an anarchist school of thought[119] which contends that the state lacks moral legitimacy. In contrast to revolutionary anarchism, philosophical anarchism does not advocate violent revolution to eliminate it but advocates peaceful evolution to superate it.[120] Although philosophical anarchism does not necessarily imply any action or desire for the elimination of the state, philosophical anarchists do not believe that they have an obligation or duty to obey the state, or conversely that the state has a right to command.
Philosophical anarchism is a component especially of individualist anarchism.[121] Philosophical anarchists of historical note include Mohandas Gandhi, William Godwin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Max Stirner,[122] Benjamin Tucker[123] and Henry David Thoreau.[124] Contemporary philosophical anarchists include A. John Simmons and Robert Paul Wolff.
Subjectivism
[edit]Subjectivism is a philosophical tenet that accords primacy to subjective experience as fundamental of all measure and law. In extreme forms such as solipsism, it may hold that the nature and existence of every object depends solely on someone's subjective awareness of it. In the proposition 5.632 of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote: "The subject doesn't belong to the world, but it is a limit of the world". Metaphysical subjectivism is the theory that reality is what we perceive to be real, and that there is no underlying true reality that exists independently of perception. One can also hold that it is consciousness rather than perception that is reality (subjective idealism). In probability, a subjectivism stands for the belief that probabilities are simply degrees-of-belief by rational agents in a certain proposition and which have no objective reality in and of themselves.
Ethical subjectivism stands in opposition to moral realism, which claims that moral propositions refer to objective facts, independent of human opinion; to error theory, which denies that any moral propositions are true in any sense; and to non-cognitivism, which denies that moral sentences express propositions at all. The most common forms of ethical subjectivism are also forms of moral relativism, with moral standards held to be relative to each culture or society, i.e. cultural relativism, or even to every individual. The latter view, as put forward by Protagoras, holds that there are as many distinct scales of good and evil as there are subjects in the world. Moral subjectivism is that species of moral relativism that relativizes moral value to the individual subject.
Horst Matthai Quelle was a Spanish-language German anarchist philosopher influenced by Max Stirner.[125] Quelle argued that since the individual gives form to the world, he is those objects, the others and the whole universe.[125] One of his main views was a "theory of infinite worlds" which for him was developed by pre-socratic philosophers.[125]
Solipsism
[edit]Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from Latin solus ("alone") and ipse ("self"). Solipsism as an epistemological position holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist. Solipsism is the only epistemological position that, by its own postulate, is both irrefutable and yet indefensible in the same manner. Although the number of individuals sincerely espousing solipsism has been small, it is not uncommon for one philosopher to accuse another's arguments of entailing solipsism as an unwanted consequence, in a kind of reductio ad absurdum. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis.
Economic individualism
[edit]The doctrine of economic individualism holds that each individual should be allowed autonomy in making their own economic decisions as opposed to those decisions being made by the community, the corporation or the state for him or her.
Classical liberalism
[edit]Liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the 19th century in the Americas, England, France and Western Europe. It followed earlier forms of liberalism in its commitment to personal freedom and popular government, but differed from earlier forms of liberalism in its commitment to classical economics and free markets.[126]
Notable liberals in the 19th century include Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo. Classical liberalism, sometimes also used as a label to refer to all forms of liberalism before the 20th century, was revived in the 20th century by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek and further developed by Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick, Loren Lomasky and Jan Narveson.[127]
Libertarianism
[edit]| Part of a series on |
| Libertarianism |
|---|
Libertarianism upholds liberty as a core principle.[128] Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association.[129] Libertarianism shares a skepticism of authority and state power, but libertarians diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling for the restriction or dissolution of coercive social institutions. Different categorizations have been used to distinguish various forms of libertarianism.[130][131] This is done to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital, usually along left–right or socialist–capitalist lines.[132]
Left-libertarianism
[edit]Left-libertarianism represents several related yet distinct approaches to politics, society, culture and political and social theory which stress both individual and political freedom alongside social justice. Unlike right-libertarians, left-libertarians believe that neither claiming nor mixing one's labor with natural resources is enough to generate full private property rights,[133][134] and maintain that natural resources (land, oil, gold, trees) ought to be held in some egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively.[134] Those left-libertarians who support property do so under different property norms[135][136][137][138] and theories,[139][140][141] or under the condition that recompense is offered to the local or global community.[134]
Related terms include egalitarian libertarianism,[142][143] left-wing libertarianism,[144] libertarianism,[145] libertarian socialism,[146][147] social libertarianism[148] and socialist libertarianism.[149] Left-libertarianism can refer generally to these related and overlapping schools of thought:
- Anti-authoritarian varieties of left-wing politics, in particular within the socialist movement, usually known as libertarian socialism.[146][147]
- Geolibertarianism, an American synthesis of libertarianism and Georgism.[150][151]
- Market anarchism, stressing the socially transformative potential of non-aggression and anti-capitalist freed markets.[152][153]
- Steiner–Vallentyne school, named after Hillel Steiner and Peter Vallentyne, whose proponents draw conclusions from classical liberal or market liberal premises.[154]
| Part of a series on |
| Libertarian socialism |
|---|
Libertarian socialism, sometimes dubbed left-libertarianism[155][156] and socialist libertarianism,[157] is an anti-authoritarian, anti-statist and libertarian[158] tradition within the socialist movement that rejects the state socialist conception of socialism as a statist form where the state retains centralized control of the economy.[159][160] Libertarian socialists criticize wage slavery relationships within the workplace,[161] emphasizing workers' self-management of the workplace[160] and decentralized structures of political organization.[162][163][164]
Libertarian socialism asserts that a society based on freedom and justice can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[165] Libertarian socialists advocate for decentralized structures based on direct democracy and federal or confederal associations such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions and workers' councils.[166][167]
All of this is generally done within a general call for liberty[168][169] and free association[170] through the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of human life.[171][172][173][174][175][176][177][178] Within the larger socialist movement, libertarian socialism seeks to distinguish itself from Leninism and social democracy.[179][180]
Past and present currents and movements commonly described as libertarian socialist include anarchism (especially anarchist schools of thought such as anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism,[181] collectivist anarchism, green anarchism, individualist anarchism,[182][183][184][185] mutualism,[186] and social anarchism) as well as communalism, some forms of democratic socialism, guild socialism,[187] libertarian Marxism[188] (autonomism, council communism,[189] left communism, and Luxemburgism, among others),[190][191] participism, revolutionary syndicalism and some versions of utopian socialism.[192]
Right-libertarianism
[edit]Right-libertarianism represents either non-collectivist forms of libertarianism[193] or a variety of different libertarian views that scholars label to the right of libertarianism[194][195] such as libertarian conservatism.[196] Related terms include conservative libertarianism,[197][198][199] libertarian capitalism[200] and right-wing libertarianism.[149][201][202] In the mid-20th century, right-libertarian ideologies such as anarcho-capitalism and minarchism co-opted[203][204] the term libertarian to advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources.[205] The latter is the dominant form of libertarianism in the United States,[149] where it advocates civil liberties,[206] natural law,[207] free-market capitalism[208][209] and a major reversal of the modern welfare state.[210]
Mutualism
[edit]
With regard to economic questions within individualist socialist schools such as individualist anarchism, there are adherents to mutualism (Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Émile Armand and early Benjamin Tucker); natural rights positions (early Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner and Josiah Warren); and egoistic disrespect for "ghosts" such as private property and markets (Max Stirner, John Henry Mackay, Lev Chernyi, later Benjamin Tucker, Renzo Novatore and illegalism). Contemporary individualist anarchist Kevin Carson characterizes American individualist anarchism saying that "[u]nlike the rest of the socialist movement, the individualist anarchists believed that the natural wage of labor in a free market was its product, and that economic exploitation could only take place when capitalists and landlords harnessed the power of the state in their interests. Thus, individualist anarchism was an alternative both to the increasing statism of the mainstream socialist movement, and to a classical liberal movement that was moving toward a mere apologetic for the power of big business."[211]
Mutualism is an anarchist school of thought which can be traced to the writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who envisioned a socialist society where each person possess a means of production, either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the free market.[212] Integral to the scheme was the establishment of a mutual-credit bank which would lend to producers at a minimal interest rate only high enough to cover the costs of administration.[213] Mutualism is based on a labor theory of value which holds that when labor or its product is sold, it ought to receive goods or services in exchange embodying "the amount of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility" and that receiving anything less would be considered exploitation, theft of labor, or usury.[214]
Criticisms
[edit]The Greek philosopher Plato emphasized that individuals must adhere to laws and perform duties while declining to grant individuals rights to limit or reject state interference in their lives.[215]
German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel criticized individualism by claiming that human self-consciousness relies on recognition from others, therefore embracing a holistic view and rejecting the idea of the world as a collection of atomized individuals.[216][217]
Fascists believe that the liberal emphasis on individual freedom produces national divisiveness.[218]
Pope Francis criticised a "me"-centred form of individualism in his 2015 encyclical letter Laudato si':
Men and women of our postmodern world run the risk of rampant individualism, and many problems of society are connected with today's self-centred culture of instant gratification.[219]
As an example he comments on parents who "can be prone to impulsive and wasteful consumption, which then affects their children who find it increasingly difficult to acquire a home of their own and build a family."[219]
Other views
[edit]As creative independent lifestyle
[edit]
The anarchist[220] writer and bohemian Oscar Wilde wrote in his famous essay The Soul of Man under Socialism that "Art is individualism, and individualism is a disturbing and disintegrating force. There lies its immense value. For what it seeks is to disturb monotony of type, slavery of custom, tyranny of habit, and the reduction of man to the level of a machine."[73] For anarchist historian George Woodcock, "Wilde's aim in The Soul of Man under Socialism is to seek the society most favorable to the artist, [...] for Wilde art is the supreme end, containing within itself enlightenment and regeneration, to which all else in society must be subordinated. [...] Wilde represents the anarchist as aesthete."[74] In this way, individualism has been used to denote a personality with a strong tendency towards self-creation and experimentation as opposed to tradition or popular mass opinions and behaviors.[5][9]
Anarchist writer Murray Bookchin describes a lot of individualist anarchists as people who "expressed their opposition in uniquely personal forms, especially in fiery tracts, outrageous behavior, and aberrant lifestyles in the cultural ghettos of fin de siècle New York, Paris, and London. As a credo, individualist anarchism remained largely a bohemian lifestyle, most conspicuous in its demands for sexual freedom ('free love') and enamored of innovations in art, behavior, and clothing."[64]
In relation to this view of individuality, French individualist anarchist Émile Armand advocated egoistical denial of social conventions and dogmas to live in accord to one's own ways and desires in daily life since he emphasized anarchism as a way of life and practice. In this way, he opined that "the anarchist individualist tends to reproduce himself, to perpetuate his spirit in other individuals who will share his views and who will make it possible for a state of affairs to be established from which authoritarianism has been banished. It is this desire, this will, not only to live, but also to reproduce oneself, which we shall call 'activity.'"[221]
In the book Imperfect Garden: The Legacy of Humanism, humanist philosopher Tzvetan Todorov identifies individualism as an important current of socio-political thought within modernity and as examples of it he mentions Michel de Montaigne, François de La Rochefoucauld, Marquis de Sade, and Charles Baudelaire.[222] In La Rochefoucauld, he identifies a tendency similar to stoicism in which "the honest person works his being in the manner of a sculptor who searches the liberation of the forms which are inside a block of marble, to extract the truth of that matter."[222] In Baudelaire, he finds the dandy trait in which one searches to cultivate "the idea of beauty within oneself, of satisfying one's passions of feeling and thinking."[222]
The Russian-American poet Joseph Brodsky once wrote that "[t]he surest defense against Evil is extreme individualism, originality of thinking, whimsicality, even – if you will – eccentricity. That is, something that can't be feigned, faked, imitated; something even a seasoned imposter couldn't be happy with."[223] Ralph Waldo Emerson famously declared that "[w]hoso would be a man must be a nonconformist" – a point of view developed at length in both the life and work of Henry David Thoreau. Equally memorable and influential on Walt Whitman is Emerson's idea that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines". Emerson opposed on principle the reliance on civil and religious social structures precisely because through them the individual approaches the divine second-hand, mediated by the once original experience of a genius from another age. According to Emerson, "[an institution is the lengthened shadow of one man." To achieve this original relation, Emerson stated that one must "[i]nsist on one's self; never imitate", for if the relationship is secondary the connection is lost.[224]
Religion
[edit]People in Western countries tend to be more individualistic than communitarian. The authors of one study[225] proposed that this difference is due in part to the influence of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. They pointed specifically to its bans on incest, cousin marriage, adoption, and remarriage, and its promotion of the nuclear family over the extended family.[226]
The Catholic Church teaches "if we pray the Our Father sincerely, we leave individualism behind, because the love that we receive frees us ... our divisions and oppositions have to be overcome".[227] Many Catholics have believed Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation were sources of individualism.[228]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ "s.v. individualism". The Oxford English Dictionary: Being a Corrected Re-Issue of with An Introduction, Supplement and Bibliography of a New English Dictionary on Historical Principles. Vol. 5 H-K. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1913. p. 224. Retrieved 17 July 2025 – via Internet Archive.
- ^ "individualism". Merriam Webster Dictionary (11th ed.). 2003. Retrieved 17 July 2025.
- ^ a b "individualism | Definition, History, Philosophy, Examples, & Facts | Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 2021-12-25.
- ^ Ellen Meiksins Wood. Mind and Politics: An Approach to the Meaning of Liberal and Socialist Individualism. University of California Press. 1972. ISBN 0-520-02029-4. p. 6
- ^ a b c d ""individualism" on The Free Dictionary". Archived from the original on 2019-05-17. Retrieved 2009-12-21.
- ^ a b L. Susan Brown. The Politics of Individualism: Liberalism, Liberal Feminism, and Anarchism. Black Rose Books Ltd. 1993
- ^ Biddle, Craig (20 February 2012). "Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice". The Objective Standard. 7 (1).
- ^ a b Hayek, F.A. (1994). The Road to Serfdom. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. pp. 17, 37–48. ISBN 0-226-32061-8.
- ^ a b Snyderman, George S.; Josephs, William (1939). "Bohemia: The Underworld of Art". Social Forces. 18 (2): 187–199. doi:10.2307/2570771. ISSN 0037-7732. JSTOR 2570771.
- ^ "The leading intellectual trait of the era was the recovery, to a certain degree, of the secular and humane philosophy of Greece and Rome. Another humanist trend which cannot be ignored was the rebirth of individualism, which, developed by Greece and Rome to a remarkable degree, had been suppressed by the rise of a caste system in the later Roman Empire, by the Church and by feudalism in the Middle Ages."The history guide: Lectures on Modern European Intellectual History"
- ^ "Anthropocentricity and individualism...Humanism and Italian art were similar in giving paramount attention to human experience, both in its everyday immediacy and in its positive or negative extremes...The human-centredness of Renaissance art, moreover, was not just a generalized endorsement of earthly experience. Like the humanists, Italian artists stressed the autonomy and dignity of the individual.""Humanism" on Encyclopædia Britannica
- ^ a b Claeys, Gregory (1986). ""Individualism," "Socialism," and "Social Science": Further Notes on a Process of Conceptual Formation, 1800–1850". Journal of the History of Ideas. 47 (1). University of Pennsylvania Press: 81–93. doi:10.2307/2709596. JSTOR 2709596.
- ^ Swart, Koenraad W. (1962). ""Individualism" in the Mid-Nineteenth Century (1826–1860)". Journal of the History of Ideas. 23 (1). University of Pennsylvania Press: 77–90. doi:10.2307/2708058. JSTOR 2708058.
- ^ Abbs 1986, cited in Klein 2005, pp. 26–27
- ^ Gerald N. Izenberg (1992). Impossible Individuality: Romanticism, Revolution, and the Origins of Modern Selfhood, 1787–1802. Princeton University Press. pp. 18+. ISBN 1-4008-2066-9.
- ^ Reese, William L. (1980). Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion (1st ed.). Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. p. 251. ISBN 0-391-00688-6.
- ^ Audi, Robert, ed. (1999). The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 424. ISBN 0-521-63136-X.
- ^ Jung, C. G. (1962). Symbols of Transformation: An analysis of the prelude to a case of schizophrenia (Vol. 2, R. F. C. Hull, Trans.). New York: Harper & Brothers.
- ^ Jung's Individuation process Archived 2018-02-23 at the Wayback Machine Retrieved on 2009-2-20
- ^ Gilbert Simondon. L'individuation psychique et collective (Paris, Aubier, 1989; reprinted in 2007 with a preface by Bernard Stiegler)
- ^ Stiegler, Bernard (13 May 2004). "Bernard Stiegler: Culture and Technology". Tate Modern. Archived 15 October 2015 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 26 September 2020.
- ^ Santos, Henri C.; Varnum, Michael E. W.; Grossmann, Igor (2017). "Global Increases in Individualism". Psychological Science. 28 (9): 1228–1239. doi:10.1177/0956797617700622. PMID 28703638. S2CID 206588771.
- ^ Minkov, Michael; Dutt, Pinaki; Schachner, Michael; Morales, Oswaldo; Sanchez, Carlos; Jandosova, Janar; Khassenbekov, Yerlan; Mudd, Ben (2017). "A revision of Hofstede's individualism-collectivism dimension". Cross Cultural & Strategic Management. 24 (3): 3. doi:10.1108/ccsm-11-2016-0197. ISSN 2059-5794.
- ^ Inglehart, Ronald F. (2018). "Chapter 3. Global Cultural Patterns". Cultural Evolution. Cambridge University Press. p. 40. doi:10.1017/9781108613880. ISBN 978-1-108-61388-0.
- ^ Gantenbein, Pascal; Kind, Axel; Volonte, Christophe (2019). "Individualism and Venture Capital: A Cross-Country Study". Management International Review. 59 (5): 741–777. doi:10.1007/s11575-019-00394-7.
- ^ Takano, Yohtaro; Osaka, Eiko (1999). "An unsupported common view: Comparing Japan and the U.S. on individualism/collectivism". Asian Journal of Social Psychology. 2 (3): 311–341. doi:10.1111/1467-839x.00043. ISSN 1367-2223.
- ^ Takano, Yohtaro; Sogon, Shunya (2008). "Are Japanese More Collectivistic Than Americans?". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 39 (3): 237–250. doi:10.1177/0022022107313902. ISSN 0022-0221. S2CID 145125365.
- ^ Takano, Yohtaro; Osaka, Eiko (2018). "Comparing Japan and the United States on individualism/collectivism: A follow-up review". Asian Journal of Social Psychology. 21 (4): 301–316. doi:10.1111/ajsp.12322. ISSN 1367-2223. S2CID 149676839.
- ^ Minkov, Michael; Dutt, Pinaki; Schachner, Michael; Morales, Oswaldo; Sanchez, Carlos; Jandosova, Janar; Khassenbekov, Yerlan; Mudd, Ben (2017). "A revision of Hofstede's individualism-collectivism dimension". Cross Cultural & Strategic Management. 24 (3): 29. doi:10.1108/ccsm-11-2016-0197. ISSN 2059-5794.
- ^ Welzel, Christian (2013). "Chapter 2. Mapping Differences". Freedom Rising. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 87. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139540919. ISBN 978-1-139-54091-9.
- ^ Beugelsdijk, Sjoerd; Welzel, Chris (2018). "Dimensions and Dynamics of National Culture: Synthesizing Hofstede With Inglehart". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 49 (10): 1485. doi:10.1177/0022022118798505. ISSN 0022-0221. PMC 6191680. PMID 30369633.
- ^ Kagitcibasi, C. (2005). Modernization does not mean westernization: Emergence of a different pattern. In W. Friedlmeier, P. Chakkarath, and B. Schwarz (Eds.), Culture and human development (pp. 255-272). Psychology Press.
- ^ Chakkarath, P. (2024). Is the individual an enlightened westerner? Some skeptical remarks on Eurocentric notions of self and the development of individualism. In A. Dueck & L. Sundararajan (Eds.), Values and indigenous psychology in the age of the machine and market: When the gods have fled (pp. 131-156). Springer International Publishing.
- ^ Benedict, Ruth; "The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture." Rutland, VT and Tokyo, Japan: Charles E. Tuttle Co. 1954 orig. 1946.
- ^ AFS-USA (2019-10-30). "Individualism & Collectivism". AFS-USA. Archived from the original on 2021-07-09. Retrieved 2021-07-08.
- ^ "Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice – The Objective Standard". The Objective Standard. 2012-02-20. Retrieved 2021-07-08.
- ^ Cai, Meina; Caskey, Gregory W.; Cowen, Nick; Murtazashvili, Ilia; Murtazashvili, Jennifer Brick; Salahodjaev, Raufhon (2022). "Individualism, economic freedom, and charitable giving". Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 200: 868–884. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2022.06.037.
- ^ Heath, Joseph (1 January 2015). "Methodological Individualism". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- ^ Stigler, George; Gary Becker (Mar 1977). "De gustibus non est disputandum". American Economic Review. 67 (2): 76. JSTOR 1807222.
- ^ "Civil libertarian Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com".
- ^ Compass, The Political. "The Political Compass".
- ^ Ellen Meiksins Wood. Mind and Politics: An Approach to the Meaning of Liberal and Socialist Individualism. University of California Press. 1972. ISBN 0-520-02029-4. p. 7
- ^ Emily Robinson, et al. "Telling stories about post-war Britain: popular individualism and the 'crisis' of the 1970s." Twentieth Century British History 28.2 (2017): 268–304.
- ^ "What do I mean by individualism? I mean by individualism the moral doctrine which, relying on no dogma, no tradition, no external determination, appeals only to the individual conscience."Mini-Manual of Individualism by Han Ryner
- ^ "I do not admit anything except the existence of the individual, as a condition of his sovereignty. To say that the sovereignty of the individual is conditioned by Liberty is simply another way of saying that it is conditioned by itself." "Anarchism and the State" in Individual Liberty
- ^ Everhart, Robert B. The Public School Monopoly: A Critical Analysis of Education and the State in American Society. Pacific Institute for Public Policy Research, 1982. p. 115.
- ^ a b Philip, Mark (2006-05-20). "William Godwin". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- ^ Adams, Ian. Political Ideology Today. Manchester University Press, 2001. p. 116.
- ^ Godwin, William (1796) [1793]. Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and its Influence on Modern Morals and Manners. G.G. and J. Robinson. OCLC 2340417.
- ^ Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Retrieved 7 December 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
- ^ Paul McLaughlin. Anarchism and Authority: A Philosophical Introduction to Classical Anarchism. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007. p. 119.
- ^ Goodway, David. Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow. Liverpool University Press, 2006, p. 99.
- ^ a b c Leopold, David (2006-08-04). "Max Stirner". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- ^ a b The Encyclopedia Americana: A Library of Universal Knowledge. Encyclopedia Corporation. p. 176.
- ^ a b Miller, David. "Anarchism." 1987. The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought. Blackwell Publishing. p. 11.
- ^ "What my might reaches is my property; and let me claim as property everything I feel myself strong enough to attain, and let me extend my actual property as fas as I entitle, that is, empower myself to take..." In Ossar, Michael. 1980. Anarchism in the Dramas of Ernst Toller. SUNY Press. p. 27.
- ^ a b Nyberg, Svein Olav. "The union of egoists" (PDF). Non Serviam. 1. Oslo, Norway: Svein Olav Nyberg: 13–14. OCLC 47758413. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 December 2010. Retrieved 1 September 2012.
- ^ a b Thomas, Paul (1985). Karl Marx and the Anarchists. London: Routledge/Kegan Paul. p. 142. ISBN 0-7102-0685-2.
- ^ a b Carlson, Andrew (1972). "Philosophical Egoism: German Antecedents". Anarchism in Germany. Metuchen: Scarecrow Press. ISBN 0-8108-0484-0. Archived from the original on 2008-12-10. Retrieved 2008-12-04.
- ^ Palmer, Brian (2010-12-29) What do anarchists want from us?, Slate.com
- ^ William Bailie, "Josiah Warren: The First American Anarchist" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on February 4, 2012. Retrieved June 17, 2013. Josiah Warren: The First American Anarchist – A Sociological Study, Boston: Small, Maynard & Co., 1906, p. 20
- ^ "Paralelamente, al otro lado del atlántico, en el diferente contexto de una nación a medio hacer, los Estados Unidos, otros filósofos elaboraron un pensamiento individualista similar, aunque con sus propias especificidades. Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862), uno de los escritores próximos al movimiento de la filosofía trascendentalista, es uno de los más conocidos. Su obra más representativa es Walden, aparecida en 1854, aunque redactada entre 1845 y 1847, cuando Thoreau decide instalarse en el aislamiento de una cabaña en el bosque, y vivir en íntimo contacto con la naturaleza, en una vida de soledad y sobriedad. De esta experiencia, su filosofía trata de transmitirnos la idea que resulta necesario un retorno respetuoso a la naturaleza, y que la felicidad es sobre todo fruto de la riqueza interior y de la armonía de los individuos con el entorno natural. Muchos han visto en Thoreau a uno de los precursores del ecologismo y del anarquismo primitivista representado en la actualidad por Jonh Zerzan. Para George Woodcock, esta actitud puede estar también motivada por una cierta idea de resistencia al progreso y de rechazo al materialismo creciente que caracteriza la sociedad norteamericana de mediados de siglo XIX.""Voluntary non-submission. Spanish individualist anarchism during dictatorship and the second republic (1923–1938)" Archived July 23, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ a b "2. Individualist Anarchism and Reaction". libcom.org.
- ^ "The Free Love Movement and Radical Individualism, By Wendy McElroy". ncc-1776.org. Archived from the original on 2021-02-18. Retrieved 2022-03-17.
- ^ ""La insumisión voluntaria: El anarquismo individualista español durante la Dictadura y la Segunda República (1923–1938)" by Xavier Díez" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 23, 2011.
- ^ "Los anarco-individualistas, G.I.A...Una escisión de la FAI producida en el IX Congreso (Carrara, 1965) se pr odujo cuando un sector de anarquistas de tendencia humanista rechazan la interpretación que ellos juzgan disciplinaria del pacto asociativo clásico, y crean los GIA (Gruppi di Iniziativa Anarchica) . Esta pequeña federación de grupos, hoy nutrida sobre todo de veteranos anarco-individualistas de orientación pacifista, naturista, etcétera defiende la autonomía personal y rechaza a rajatabla toda forma de intervención en los procesos del sistema, como sería por ejemplo el sindicalismo. Su portavoz es L'Internazionale con sede en Ancona. La escisión de los GIA prefiguraba, en sentido contrario, el gran debate que pronto había de comenzar en el seno del movimiento""El movimiento libertario en Italia" by Bicicleta. REVISTA DE COMUNICACIONES LIBERTARIAS Year 1 No. Noviembre, 1 1977 Archived October 12, 2013, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "Proliferarán así diversos grupos que practicarán el excursionismo, el naturismo, el nudismo, la emancipación sexual o el esperantismo, alrededor de asociaciones informales vinculadas de una manera o de otra al anarquismo. Precisamente las limitaciones a las asociaciones obreras impuestas desde la legislación especial de la Dictadura potenciarán indirectamente esta especie de asociacionismo informal en que confluirá el movimiento anarquista con esta heterogeneidad de prácticas y tendencias. Uno de los grupos más destacados, que será el impulsor de la revista individualista Ética será el Ateneo Naturista Ecléctico, con sede en Barcelona, con sus diferentes secciones la más destacada de las cuales será el grupo excursionista Sol y Vida.""La insumisión voluntaria: El anarquismo individualista español durante la Dictadura y la Segunda República (1923–1938)" by Xavier Díez Archived July 23, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "Les anarchistes individualistes du début du siècle l'avaient bien compris, et intégraient le naturisme dans leurs préoccupations. Il est vraiment dommage que ce discours se soit peu à peu effacé, d'antan plus que nous assistons, en ce moment, à un retour en force du puritanisme (conservateur par essence).""Anarchisme et naturisme, aujourd'hui." by Cathy Ytak Archived February 25, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ anne (30 July 2014). "Culture of Individualist Anarchism in Late 19th Century America" (PDF).
- ^ The "Illegalists" Archived September 8, 2015, at the Wayback Machine, by Doug Imrie (published by Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed)
- ^ Parry, Richard. The Bonnot Gang. Rebel Press, 1987. p. 15
- ^ a b "Oscar Wilde essay The soul of man under Socialism". Archived from the original on 2013-09-14.
- ^ a b c George Woodcock. Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. 1962. (p. 447)
- ^ Rothbard, Murray N. (2007). The Betrayal of the American Right, Ludwig von Mises Institute, p. 187. ISBN 978-1-933550-13-8
- ^ "Autarchy vs Anarchy" by Robert LeFevre. Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought Vol. 1, No. 4 (Winter, 1965): 30–49
- ^ The Ancient Chinese Super State of Primary Societies: Taoist Philosophy for the 21st Century, You-Sheng Li, June 2010, p. 300
- ^ Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-954059-4.
- ^ Locke, John (1690). Two Treatises of Government (10th ed.). Project Gutenberg. Retrieved January 21, 2009.
- ^ Paul E. Sigmund, editor, The Selected Political Writings of John Locke, Norton, 2003, ISBN 0-393-96451-5 p. iv "(Locke's thoughts) underlie many of the fundamental political ideas of US liberal constitutional democracy...", "At the time Locke wrote, his principles were accepted in theory by a few and in practice by none."
- ^ Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.
- ^ John Gray, Two Faces of Liberalism, The New Press, 2008, ISBN 978-1-56584-678-4
- ^ "Egoism – The Anarchist Library".
- ^ O. Ewald, "German Philosophy in 1907", in The Philosophical Review, Vol. 17, No. 4, Jul., 1908, pp. 400–426; T. A. Riley, "Anti-Statism in German Literature, as Exemplified by the Work of John Henry Mackay", in PMLA, Vol. 62, No. 3, Sep. 1947, pp. 828–843; C. E. Forth, "Nietzsche, Decadence, and Regeneration in France, 1891–95", in Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 54, No. 1, Jan., 1993, pp. 97–117; see also Robert C. Holub's Nietzsche: Socialist, Anarchist, Feminist, an essay available online at the University of California, Berkeley website.
- ^ Sanders, Steven M. Is egoism morally defensible? Philosophia. Springer Netherlands. Volume 18, Numbers 2–3 / July 1988
- ^ Rachels 2008, p. 534.
- ^ Ridgely, D. A. (August 24, 2008). "Selfishness, Egoism and Altruistic Libertarianism". Archived from the original on December 2, 2008. Retrieved August 24, 2008.
- ^ Macquarrie, John. Existentialism, New York (1972), pp. 18–21.
- ^ Oxford Companion to Philosophy, ed. Ted Honderich, New York (1995), p. 259.
- ^ Macquarrie. Existentialism, pp. 14–15.
- ^ Cooper, D. E. Existentialism: A Reconstruction (Basil Blackwell, 1999, p. 8)
- ^ Marino, Gordon. Basic Writings of Existentialism (Modern Library, 2004, pp. ix, 3).
- ^ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/
- ^ Watts, Michael. Kierkegaard (Oneworld, 2003, pp. 4–6).
- ^ Lowrie, Walter. Kierkegaard's attack upon "Christendom" (Princeton, 1968, pp. 37–40)
- ^ Corrigan, John. The Oxford handbook of religion and emotion (Oxford, 2008, pp. 387–388)
- ^ Livingston, James et al. Modern Christian Thought: The Twentieth Century (Fortress Press, 2006, Chapter 5: Christian Existentialism).
- ^ Martin, Clancy. Religious Existentialism in Companion to Phenomenology and Existentialism (Blackwell, 2006, pp. 188–205)
- ^ Robert C. Solomon, Existentialism (McGraw-Hill, 1974, pp. 1–2)
- ^ D.E. Cooper Existentialism: A Reconstruction (Basil Blackwell, 1999, p. 8).
- ^ Ernst Breisach, Introduction to Modern Existentialism, New York (1962), p. 5
- ^ Walter Kaufmann, Existentialism: From Dostoevesky to Sartre, New York (1956), p. 12
- ^ Guignon, Charles B. and Derk Pereboom. Existentialism: basic writings (Hackett Publishing, 2001, p. xiii)
- ^ Nietzsche, Friedrich (1999). Thus Spake Zarathustra: A Book for All and None. The Gutenberg Project. p. 8.
- ^ Hastings, James. Encyclopedia of Religion
- ^ Compact Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 2007.
humanism n. 1 a rationalistic system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. 2 a Renaissance cultural movement that turned away from medieval scholasticism and revived interest in ancient Greek and Roman thought.
Typically, abridgments of this definition omit all senses except #1, such as in the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary Archived 2003-12-30 at the Wayback Machine, Collins Essential English Dictionary, and Webster's Concise Dictionary. New York: RHR Press. 2001. p. 177. ISBN 978-0-375-42574-5. - ^ "Definitions of humanism (subsection)". Institute for Humanist Studies. Archived from the original on 2007-01-18. Retrieved 16 Jan 2007.
- ^ Davis, Lewis S.; Williamson, Claudia R. (2019). "Does individualism promote gender equality?". World Development. 123 104627. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104627.
- ^ Edwords, Fred (1989). "What Is Humanism?". American Humanist Association. Archived from the original on 30 January 2010. Retrieved 19 August 2009.
Secular and Religious Humanists both share the same worldview and the same basic principles... From the standpoint of philosophy alone, there is no difference between the two. It is only in the definition of religion and in the practice of the philosophy that Religious and Secular Humanists effectively disagree.
- ^ Moore, Andrew (1 January 2013). "Hedonism". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- ^ "libertine" – via The Free Dictionary.
- ^ "WordNet Search – 3.1". wordnetweb.princeton.edu.
- ^ René Pintard (2000). Le Libertinage érudit dans la première moitié du XVIIe siècle. Slatkine. p. 11. ISBN 978-2-05-101818-0. Retrieved 24 July 2012.
- ^ Amesbury, Richard (1 January 2016). "Fideism". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- ^ "A Martyr to Sin". archive.nytimes.com.
- ^ "What Is Objectivism? – The Objective Standard". theobjectivestandard.com. Retrieved 2021-07-08.
- ^ "About the Author" in Rand, Ayn (1992) [1957]. Atlas Shrugged (35th anniversary ed.). New York: Dutton. pp. 1170–1171. ISBN 978-0-525-94892-6.
- ^ Tucker said, "the fact that one class of men are dependent for their living upon the sale of their labour, while another class of men are relieved of the necessity of labour by being legally privileged to sell something that is not labour . . . And to such a state of things I am as much opposed as any one. But the minute you remove privilege . . . every man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers . . . What Anarchistic-Socialism aims to abolish is usury . . . it wants to deprive capital of its reward." Benjamin Tucker. Instead of a Book, p. 404
- ^ Wayne Gabardi, review of Anarchism by David Miller, published in American Political Science Review Vol. 80, No. 1. (Mar., 1986), pp. 300–302.
- ^ According to scholar Allan Antliff, Benjamin Tucker coined the term "philosophical anarchism," to distinguish peaceful evolutionary anarchism from revolutionary variants. Antliff, Allan. 2001. Anarchist Modernism: Art, Politics, and the First American Avant-Garde. University of Chicago Press. p. 4
- ^ Outhwaite, William & Tourain, Alain (Eds.). (2003). Anarchism. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought (2nd Edition, p. 12). Blackwell Publishing
- ^ Michael Freeden identifies four broad types of individualist anarchism. He says the first is the type associated with William Godwin that advocates self-government with a "progressive rationalism that included benevolence to others." The second type is the amoral self-serving rationality of Egoism, as most associated with Max Stirner. The third type is "found in Herbert Spencer's early predictions, and in that of some of his disciples such as Donisthorpe, foreseeing the redundancy of the state in the source of social evolution." The fourth type retains a moderated form of Egoism and accounts for social cooperation through the advocacy of market. Freeden, Michael. Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-829414-X. pp. 313–314.
- ^ Tucker, Benjamin R., Instead of a Book, by a Man too Busy to Write One: A Fragmentary Exposition of Philosophical Anarchism (1897, New York)
- ^ Broderick, John C. "Thoreau's Proposals for Legislation". American Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 3 (Autumn, 1955). p. 285
- ^ a b c Quelle, Horst Matthai (2002). Textos filosoficos (1989–1999). UABC. ISBN 978-970-9051-32-2 – via Google Books.
- ^ Hudelson, Richard (1999). Modern Political Philosophy. M.E. Sharpe. ISBN 978-0-7656-0021-9 – via Google Books.
- ^ David Conway. Classical Liberalism: The Unvanquished Ideal. Palgrave Macmillan. 1998. ISBN 978-0-312-21932-1 p. 8
- ^ Boaz, David (30 January 2009). "Libertarianism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 21 February 2017.
[L]ibertarianism, political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value.
- ^ Woodcock, George (2004) [1962]. Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. Peterborough: Broadview Press. p. 16. ISBN 978-1-55111-629-7.
[F]or the very nature of the libertarian attitude – its rejection of dogma, its deliberate avoidance of rigidly systematic theory, and, above all, its stress on extreme freedom of choice and on the primacy of the individual judgement [sic].
- ^ Long, Joseph. W (1996). "Toward a Libertarian Theory of Class". Social Philosophy and Policy. 15 (2): 310. "When I speak of 'libertarianism' [...] I mean all three of these very different movements. It might be protested that LibCap [libertarian capitalism], LibSoc [libertarian socialism] and LibPop [libertarian populism] are too different from one another to be treated as aspects of a single point of view. But they do share a common – or at least an overlapping – intellectual ancestry."
- ^ Carlson, Jennifer D. (2012). "Libertarianism". In Miller, Wilburn R., ed. The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America. London: Sage Publications. p. 1006. ISBN 978-1412988766. "There exist three major camps in libertarian thought: right-libertarianism, socialist libertariaism, and left-lbertarianism; the extent to which these represent distinct ideologies as opposed to variations on a theme is contrasted by scholars. Regardless, these factions differ most pronouncedly with respect to private property."
- ^ Francis, Mark (December 1983). "Human Rights and Libertarians". Australian Journal of Politics & History. 29 (3): 462–472. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8497.1983.tb00212.x. ISSN 0004-9522.
- ^ Vallentyne, Peter; Steiner, Hillel; Otsuka, Michael (2005). "Why Left-Libertarianism Is Not Incoherent, Indeterminate, or Irrelevant: A Reply to Fried" (PDF). Philosophy and Public Affairs. 33 (2). Blackwell Publishing, Inc.: 201–215. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2005.00030.x. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-11-03. Retrieved 2013-07-23.
- ^ a b c Narveson, Jan; Trenchard, David (2008). "Left Libertarianism". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Cato Institute. pp. 288–289. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n174. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024.
- ^ Schnack, William (13 November 2015). "Panarchy Flourishes Under Geo-Mutualism". Center for a Stateless Society. Archived 10 August 2018 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 10 August 2018.
- ^ Byas, Jason Lee (25 November 2015). "The Moral Irrelevance of Rent". Center for a Stateless Society. Retrieved 21 March 2020.
- ^ Carson, Kevin (8 November 2015). "Are We All Mutualists?" Center for a Stateless Society. Retrieved 21 March 2020.
- ^ Gillis, William (29 November 2015). "The Organic Emergence of Property from Reputation". Center for a Stateless Society. Retrieved 8 April 2020.
- ^ Bylund, Per (2005). Man and Matter: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Justification of Ownership in Land from the Basis of Self-Ownership (PDF). LUP Student Papers (master's thesis). Lund University. Retrieved 12 July 2020.
- ^ Long, Roderick T. (2006). "Land-locked: A Critique of Carson on Property Rights" (PDF). Journal of Libertarian Studies. 20 (1): 87–95.
- ^ Verhaegh, Marcus (2006). "Rothbard as a Political Philosopher" (PDF). Journal of Libertarian Studies. 20 (4): 3.
- ^ Sundstrom, William A. (16 May 2002). "An Egalitarian-Libertarian Manifesto". Archived 29 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine.
- ^ Sullivan, Mark A. (July 2003). "Why the Georgist Movement Has Not Succeeded: A Personal Response to the Question Raised by Warren J. Samuels". American Journal of Economics and Sociology. 62 (3): 612.
- ^ Spitz, Jean-Fabien (March 2006). "Left-wing libertarianism: equality based on self-ownership". Raisons Politiques. 23 (3): 23–46. doi:10.3917/rai.023.0023. Retrieved 28 November 2019.
- ^ Bookchin, Murray (January 1986). "The Greening of Politics: Toward a New Kind of Political Practice". Green Perspectives: Newsletter of the Green Program Project (1).
- ^ a b Bookchin, Murray; Biehl, Janet (1997). The Murray Bookchin Reader. New York: Cassell. p. 170.
- ^ a b Long, Roderick T. (2012). "The Rise of Social Anarchism". In Gaus, Gerald F.; D'Agostino, Fred, eds. The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy. p. 223.
- ^ Grunberg, Gérard; Schweisguth, Etienne; Boy, Daniel; Mayer, Nonna, eds. (1993). The French Voter Decides. "Social Libertarianism and Economic Liberalism". University of Michigan Press. p. 45. ISBN 978-0-472-10438-3
- ^ a b c Carlson, Jennifer D. (2012). "Libertarianism". In Miller, Wilbur R. The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America: An Encyclopedia. Sage Publications. pp. 1006–1007.
- ^ Foldvart, Fred E. "Geoism and Libertarianism". The Progress Report. Progress.org. Archived from the original on 4 November 2012. Retrieved 26 March 2013.
- ^ DeCoster, Karen (19 April 2006). "Henry George and the Tariff Question". LewRockwell.com. Retrieved 23 September 2020.
- ^ Sheldon Richman (3 February 2011). "Libertarian Left: Free-market anti-capitalism, the unknown ideal". The American Conservative. Archived 10 June 2019 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 5 March 2012.
- ^ Chartier, Gary; Johnson, Charles W. (2011). Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty. Brooklyn: Minor Compositions/Autonomedia. pp. 1–11. ISBN 978-1570272424.
- ^ Will Kymlicka (2005). "libertarianism, left-". In Ted Honderich (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.
- ^ Bookchin, Murray and Janet Biehl. The Murray Bookchin Reader. Cassell, 1997. p. 170 ISBN 0-304-33873-7
- ^ Hicks, Steven V. and Daniel E. Shannon. The American journal of economics and sociology. Blackwell Pub, 2003. p. 612
- ^ Miller, Wilbur R. (2012). The social history of crime and punishment in America. An encyclopedia. 5 vols. London: Sage Publications. p. 1007. ISBN 1412988764. "There exist three major camps in libertarian thought: right-libertarianism, socialist libertarianism, and ..."
- ^ "It implies a classless and anti-authoritarian (i.e. libertarian) society in which people manage their own affairs" I.1 Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron? Archived 2017-11-16 at the Wayback Machine at An Anarchist FAQ
- ^ "unlike other socialists, they tend to see (to various different degrees, depending on the thinker) to be skeptical of centralized state intervention as the solution to capitalist exploitation..." Roderick T. Long. "Toward a libertarian theory of class." Social Philosophy and Policy. Volume 15. Issue 02. Summer 1998. p. 305
- ^ a b "So, libertarian socialism rejects the idea of state ownership and control of the economy, along with the state as such. Through workers' self-management it proposes to bring an end to authority, exploitation, and hierarchy in production." "I1. Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron" in Archived 2017-11-16 at the Wayback Machine An Anarchist FAQ
- ^ "Therefore, rather than being an oxymoron, "libertarian socialism" indicates that true socialism must be libertarian and that a libertarian who is not a socialist is a phoney. As true socialists oppose wage labour, they must also oppose the state for the same reasons. Similarly, libertarians must oppose wage labour for the same reasons they must oppose the state." "I1. Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron" in Archived 2017-11-16 at the Wayback Machine An Anarchist FAQ
- ^ "Their analysis treats libertarian socialism as a form of anti-parliamentary, democratic, antibureaucratic grass roots socialist organisation, strongly linked to working class activism." Alex Prichard, Ruth Kinna, Saku Pinta and Dave Berry (eds) Libertarian Socialism: Politics in Black and Red. Palgrave Macmillan, December 2012. p. 13
- ^ " ...preferringa system of popular self governance via networks of decentralized, local voluntary, participatory, cooperative associations. Roderick T. Long. "Toward a libertarian theory of class." Social Philosophy and Policy. Volume 15. Issue 02. Summer 1998. p. 305
- ^ "What is of particular interest here, however, is the appeal to a form of emancipation grounded in decentralized, cooperative and democratic forms of political and economic governance which most libertarian socialist visions, including Cole's, tend to share." Charles Masquelier. Critical theory and libertarian socialism: Realizing the political potential of critical social theory. Bloomsbury Publishing. New York and London. 2014. p. 189
- ^ Mendes, Silva. Socialismo Libertário ou Anarchismo Vol. 1 (1896): "Society should be free through mankind's spontaneous federative affiliation to life, based on the community of land and tools of the trade; meaning: Anarchy will be equality by abolition of private property (while retaining respect for personal property) and liberty by abolition of authority".
- ^ "...preferring a system of popular self governance via networks of decentralized, local, voluntary, participatory, cooperative associations-sometimes as a complement to and check on state power..."
- ^ Rocker, Rudolf (2004). Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice. AK Press. p. 65. ISBN 978-1-902593-92-0.
- ^ "LibSoc share with LibCap an aversion to any interference to freedom of thought, expression or choice of lifestyle." Roderick T. Long. "Toward a libertarian theory of class." Social Philosophy and Policy. Volume 15. Issue 02. Summer 1998. pp 305
- ^ "...what categorizes libertarian socialism is a focus on forms of social organization to further the freedom of the individual combined with an advocacy of non-state means for achieving this." Matt Dawson. Late modernity, individualization and socialism: An Associational Critique of Neoliberalism. Palgrave MacMillan. 2013. p. 64
- ^ "What is implied by the term 'libertarian socialism'?: The idea that socialism is first and foremost about freedom and therefore about overcoming the domination, repression, and alienation that block the free flow of human creativity, thought, and action...An approach to socialism that incorporates cultural revolution, women's and children's liberation, and the critique and transformation of daily life, as well as the more traditional concerns of socialist politics. A politics that is completely revolutionary because it seeks to transform all of reality. We do not think that capturing the economy and the state lead automatically to the transformation of the rest of social being, nor do we equate liberation with changing our life-styles and our heads. Capitalism is a total system that invades all areas of life: socialism must be the overcoming of capitalist reality in its entirety, or it is nothing." "What is Libertarian Socialism?" by Ulli Diemer. Volume 2, Number 1 (Summer 1997 issue) of The Red Menace.
- ^ "The IAF–IFA fights for : the abolition of all forms of authority whether economical, political, social, religious, cultural or sexual.""Principles of The International of Anarchist Federations" Archived January 5, 2012, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Ward, Colin (1966). "Anarchism as a Theory of Organization". Archived from the original on 25 March 2010. Retrieved 1 March 2010.
- ^ "The Soviet Union Versus Socialism". chomsky.info. Retrieved 2015-11-22.
Libertarian socialism, furthermore, does not limit its aims to democratic control by producers over production, but seeks to abolish all forms of domination and hierarchy in every aspect of social and personal life, an unending struggle, since progress in achieving a more just society will lead to new insight and understanding of forms of oppression that may be concealed in traditional practice and consciousness.
- ^ "Authority is defined in terms of the right to exercise social control (as explored in the "sociology of power") and the correlative duty to obey (as explred in the "philosophy of practical reason"). Anarchism is distinguished, philosophically, by its scepticism towards such moral relations – by its questioning of the claims made for such normative power – and, practically, by its challenge to those "authoritative" powers which cannot justify their claims and which are therefore deemed illegitimate or without moral foundation."Anarchism and Authority: A Philosophical Introduction to Classical Anarchism by Paul McLaughlin. AshGate. 2007. p. 1
- ^ "Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations." Emma Goldman. "What it Really Stands for Anarchy" in Anarchism and Other Essays.
- ^ Individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker defined anarchism as opposition to authority as follows "They found that they must turn either to the right or to the left, – follow either the path of Authority or the path of Liberty. Marx went one way; Warren and Proudhon the other. Thus were born State Socialism and Anarchism...Authority, takes many shapes, but, broadly speaking, her enemies divide themselves into three classes: first, those who abhor her both as a means and as an end of progress, opposing her openly, avowedly, sincerely, consistently, universally; second, those who profess to believe in her as a means of progress, but who accept her only so far as they think she will subserve their own selfish interests, denying her and her blessings to the rest of the world; third, those who distrust her as a means of progress, believing in her only as an end to be obtained by first trampling upon, violating, and outraging her. These three phases of opposition to Liberty are met in almost every sphere of thought and human activity. Good representatives of the first are seen in the Catholic Church and the Russian autocracy; of the second, in the Protestant Church and the Manchester school of politics and political economy; of the third, in the atheism of Gambetta and the socialism of Karl Marx." Benjamin Tucker. Individual Liberty.
- ^ Anarchist historian George Woodcock report of Mikhail Bakunin's anti-authoritarianism and shows opposition to both state and non-state forms of authority as follows: "All anarchists deny authority; many of them fight against it." (p. 9)...Bakunin did not convert the League's central committee to his full program, but he did persuade them to accept a remarkably radical recommendation to the Berne Congress of September 1868, demanding economic equality and implicitly attacking authority in both Church and State."
- ^ Brown, L. Susan (2002). "Anarchism as a Political Philosophy of Existential Individualism: Implications for Feminism". The Politics of Individualism: Liberalism, Liberal Feminism and Anarchism. Black Rose Books Ltd. Publishing. p. 106.
- ^ "It is forgotten that the early defenders of commercial society like (Adam) Smith were as much concerned with criticising the associational blocks to mobile labour represented by guilds as they were to the activities of the state. The history of socialist thought includes a long associational and anti-statist tradition prior to the political victory of the Bolshevism in the east and varieties of Fabianism in the west. John O'Neil." The Market: Ethics, knowledge and politics. Routledge. 1998. p. 3
- ^ "In some ways, it is perhaps fair to say that if Left communism is an intellectual- political formation, it is so, first and foremost, negatively – as opposed to other socialist traditions. I have labelled this negative pole 'socialist orthodoxy', composed of both Leninists and social democrats...What I suggested was that these Left communist thinkers differentiated their own understandings of communism from a strand of socialism that came to follow a largely electoral road in the West, pursuing a kind of social capitalism, and a path to socialism that predominated in the peripheral and semi- peripheral countries, which sought revolutionary conquest of power and led to something like state capitalism. Generally, the Left communist thinkers were to find these paths locked within the horizons of capitalism (the law of value, money, private property, class, the state), and they were to characterize these solutions as statist, substitutionist and authoritarian." Chamsy el- Ojeili. Beyond post-socialism. Dialogues with the far-left. Palgrave Macmillan. 2015. p. 8
- ^ Sims, Franwa (2006). The Anacostia Diaries As It Is. Lulu Press. p. 160.
- ^ An Anarchist FAQ. "(Benjamin) Tucker referred to himself many times as a socialist and considered his philosophy to be "Anarchistic socialism."
- ^ Armand, Émile (1907). "Anarchist Individualism as a Life and Activity". French individualist anarchist Émile Armand shows clearly opposition to capitalism and centralized economies when he said that the individualist anarchist "inwardly he remains refractory – fatally refractory – morally, intellectually, economically (The capitalist economy and the directed economy, the speculators and the fabricators of single are equally repugnant to him.)"
- ^ Sabatini, Peter (1994–1995). "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy". Anarchist Peter Sabatini reports that in the United States "of early to mid-19th century, there appeared an array of communal and "utopian" counterculture groups (including the so-called free love movement). William Godwin's anarchism exerted an ideological influence on some of this, but more so the socialism of Robert Owen and Charles Fourier. After success of his British venture, Owen himself established a cooperative community within the United States at New Harmony, Indiana during 1825. One member of this commune was Josiah Warren (1798–1874), considered to be the first individualist anarchist."
- ^ Chartier, Gary; Johnson, Charles W. (2011). Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty. Brooklyn: Minor Compositions/Autonomedia. Back cover. "It introduces an eye-opening approach to radical social thought, rooted equally in libertarian socialism and market anarchism."
- ^ "A Mutualist FAQ: A.4. Are Mutualists Socialists?" Archived 9 June 2009 at the Wayback Machine.
- ^ Masquelier, Charles (2014). Critical Theory and Libertarian Socialism: Realizing the Political Potential of Critical Social Theory. New York and London: Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 190. "It is by meeting such a twofold requirement that the libertarian socialism of G.D.H. Cole could be said to offer timely and sustainable avenues for the institutionalization of the liberal value of autonomy [...]."
- ^ Prichard, Alex; Kinna, Ruth; Pinta, Saku; Berry, Dave, eds. (December 2012). Libertarian Socialism: Politics in Black and Red. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 13. "Locating libertarian socialism in a grey area between anarchist and Marxist extremes, they argue that the multiple experiences of historical convergence remain inspirational and that, through these examples, the hope of socialist transformation survives."
- ^ Boraman, Toby (December 2012). "Carnival and Class: Anarchism and Councilism in Australasia during the 1970s". In Prichard, Alex; Kinna, Ruth; Pinta, Saku; Berry, Dave, eds. Libertarian Socialism: Politics in Black and Red. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 268. "Councilism and anarchism loosely merged into 'libertarian socialism', offering a non-dogmatic path by which both council communism and anarchism could be updated for the changed conditions of the time, and for the new forms of proletarian resistance to these new conditions."
- ^ Bookchin, Murray (1992). "The Ghost of Anarcho-Syndicalism".
- ^ Graham, Robert. "The General Idea of Proudhon's Revolution".
- ^ Bromley, Kent (1906). "Preface". In Kropotkin, Peter. The Conquest of Bread. London and New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons.
- ^ Olsaretti, Serena (2004). Liberty, Desert and the Market: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge University Press. pp. 14, 88, 100.
- ^ Graham, Paul; Hoffman, John (2003). An Introduction to Political Theory. Routledge. p. 93. ISBN 978-1-3178-6342-7.
A distinction is made between right libertarianism and left libertarianism. Self-ownership is the starting point for all libertarians, but right and left libertarians divide over the implications for the ownership of external things from the self-ownership premise.
- ^ Vallentyne, Peter (2007). "Libertarianism and the State". In Frankel Paul, Ellen; Miller, Fred Jr.; Paul, Jeffrey (eds.). Liberalism: Old and New. Vol. 24. Cambridge University Press. pp. 187–205. ISBN 978-0-521-70305-5.
The best known form of libertarianism – right-libertarianism – is a version of classical liberalism, but there is also a form of libertarianism – left-libertarianism – that combines classical liberalism's concern for individual liberty with contemporary liberalism's robust concern for material equality.
- ^ Heywood, Andrew (2015). Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations: Palgrave Key Concepts. Macmillan International Higher Education. p. 37. ISBN 978-1-1374-9477-1.
- ^ Graber, Mark A. (1991). Transforming Free Speech: The Ambiguous Legacy of Civil Libertarianism. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. p. 18. ISBN 978-0520913134.
- ^ Narveson, Jan (2001). The Libertarian Idea (revised ed.). Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press. p. 8. ISBN 978-1551114217.
- ^ Passavent, Paul (2003). No Escape: Freedom of Speech and the Paradox of Rights. New York: New York University Press. p. 49. ISBN 978-0814766965.
- ^ Reiman, Jeffrey H. (2005). "The Fallacy of Libertarian Capitalism". Ethics. 10 (1): 85–95. doi:10.1086/292300. JSTOR 2380706. S2CID 170927490.
- ^ Goodway, David (2006). Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. p. 4. "'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Rothbard and Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition".
- ^ Marshall, Peter (2008). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. London: Harper Perennial. p. 565. "The problem with the term 'libertarian' is that it is now also used by the Right. [...] In its moderate form, right libertarianism embraces laissez-faire liberals like Robert Nozick who call for a minimal State, and in its extreme form, anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard and David Friedman who entirely repudiate the role of the State and look to the market as a means of ensuring social order".
- ^ Fernandez, Frank (2001). Cuban Anarchism. The History of a Movement. Sharp Press. p. 9. "Thus, in the United States, the once exceedingly useful term 'libertarian' has been hijacked by egotists who are in fact enemies of liberty in the full sense of the word."
- ^ Rothbard, Murray (2009) [2007]. The Betrayal of the American Right (PDF). Mises Institute. p. 83. ISBN 978-1-61016-501-3.
One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy. 'Libertarians' had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over.
- ^ Hussain, Syed B. (2004). Encyclopedia of Capitalism, Volume 2. New York: Facts on File Inc. p. 492. ISBN 0-8160-5224-7.
In the modern world, political ideologies are largely defined by their attitude towards capitalism. Marxists want to overthrow it, liberals to curtail it extensively, conservatives to curtail it moderately. Those who maintain that capitalism is an excellent economic system, unfairly maligned, with little or no need for corrective government policy, are generally known as libertarians.
- ^ Rothbard, Murray (1 March 1971). "The Left and Right Within Libertarianism". WIN: Peace and Freedom Through Nonviolent Action. 7 (4): 6–10. Retrieved 14 January 2020.
- ^ Miller, Fred (15 August 2008). "Natural Law". The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Retrieved 31 July 2019.
- ^ Boaz, David (12 April 2019). "Key Concepts of Libertarianism". Cato Institute. Retrieved 20 December 2019.
- ^ "What Is Libertarian". Institute for Humane Studies. Retrieved 20 December 2019.
- ^ Baradat, Leon P. (2015). Political Ideologies. Routledge. p. 31. ISBN 978-1-317-34555-8.
- ^ Kevin Carson. Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective. Booksurge. 2008. p. 1
- ^ "Mutualist.Org: Free Market Anti-Capitalism". www.mutualist.org.
- ^ Miller, David. 1987. "Mutualism." The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought. Blackwell Publishing. p. 11
- ^ Tandy, Francis D., 1896, Voluntary Socialism, chapter 6, paragraph 15.
- ^ Sharma, R.N. (1991). Plato: An Inter-disciplinary Perspective. New Delhi, India: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors. pp. 131–132.
- ^ "Hegel" by Charles Taylor, Part II: Phenomenology: IV The Dialectic of Consciousness, V Self-Consciousness
- ^ "Social and Political Recognition" by Paddy McQueen
- ^ Marvin Perry, Myrna Chase, Margaret Jacob, James R. Jacob. Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics, and Society – From 1600, Volume 2. 9th ed. Boston, Massaschussetts: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2009 pp. 760
- ^ a b Pope Francis, Laudato si', paragraph 162, published 24 May 2015, accessed 18 April 2024
- ^ "The most ambitious contribution to literary anarchism during the 1890s was undoubtedly Oscar Wilde The Soul of Man under Socialism. Wilde, as we have seen, declared himself an anarchist on at least one occasion during the 1890s, and he greatly admired Peter Kropotkin, whom he had met. Later, in De Profundis, he described Kropotkin's life as one "of the most perfect lives I have come across in my own experience" and talked of him as "a man with a soul of that beautiful white Christ that seems coming out of Russia." But in The Soul of Man under Socialism, which appeared in 1890, it is Godwin rather than Kropotkin whose influence seems dominant." George Woodcock. Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. 1962. (p. 447).
- ^ _wlo:dek. "Emil Armand "Anarchist Individualism as a Life and Activity"".
- ^ a b c Imperfect garden : the legacy of humanism. Princeton University Press. 2002.
- ^ "Dictionary.com". Archived from the original on 2010-11-19.
- ^ "Emerson, Ralph Waldo | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy".
- ^ "How the early Christian church gave birth to today's WEIRD Europeans". www.science.org.
- ^ Chatterjee, Rhitu (November 7, 2019). "Western Individualism May Have Roots In The Medieval Church's Obsession With Incest". NPR.
- ^ "Catechism of the Catholic Church 2792".
- ^ Chalamet, C.; Delikostantis, K.; Getcha, J.; Parmentier, E. (2021). Theological Anthropology, 500 Years after Martin Luther: Orthodox and Protestant Perspectives. Studies in Systematic Theology. Brill. p. 187. ISBN 978-90-04-46125-3. Retrieved 2023-05-06.
Further reading
[edit]- Albrecht, James M. (2012) Reconstructing Individualism : A Pragmatic Tradition from Emerson to Ellison. Fordham University Press.
- Brown, L. Susan (1993). The Politics of Individualism: Liberalism, Liberal Feminism, and Anarchism. Black Rose Books.
- Dewey, John. (1930). Individualism Old and New.
- Emerson, Ralph Waldo (1847). Self-Reliance. London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd.
- Gagnier, Regenia. (2010). Individualism, Decadence and Globalization: On the Relationship of Part to Whole, 1859–1920. Palgrave Macmillan.
- Dumont, Louis (1986). Essays on Individualism: Modern Ideology in Anthropological Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-16958-8.
- Siedentop, Larry (2014). Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism. Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-100954-4.
- Lukes, Steven (1973). Individualism. New York: Harper & Row. ISBN 0-631-14750-0.
- Macpherson, C.B. (2018). Individualism. In: The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Palgrave Macmillan, London
- Meiksins Wood, Ellen. (1972). Mind and Politics: An Approach to the Meaning of Liberal and Socialist Individualism. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-02029-4
- Renaut, Alain (1999). The Era of the Individual. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-02938-5.
- Shanahan, Daniel. (1991) Toward a Genealogy of Individualism. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. ISBN 0-87023-811-6.
- Watt, Ian. (1996) Myths of Modern Individualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-48011-6.
- Barzilai, Gad. (2003). Communities and Law. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-11315-1.
Individualism
View on GrokipediaDefinition and Etymology
Core Principles and Definitions
Individualism constitutes a moral, political, and social philosophy that asserts the inherent worth, autonomy, and primacy of the individual over collective entities such as the state or society.[12][13] This view holds that individuals possess inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, derived from their capacity for rational choice and self-direction, rather than from group consensus or communal obligations.[14] Central to individualism is the rejection of coercive authority that subordinates personal agency to purported collective goods, emphasizing instead voluntary cooperation among free agents.[5] Key principles encompass:- Self-ownership and autonomy: Individuals own their bodies, labor, and the fruits of their efforts, entitling them to make decisions free from unchosen interference, as this aligns with causal agency where actions stem from personal volition rather than imposed duties.[14][5]
- Rational self-interest: Pursuit of one's goals through reason, not altruism or sacrifice, forms the ethical foundation, positing that individual flourishing, when uncoerced, generates societal benefits via trade and innovation, as evidenced by historical correlations between individualism and economic growth rates exceeding 2% annually in liberal societies post-1800.[5][3]
- Methodological individualism: Social phenomena, including institutions and norms, emerge from aggregated individual actions and intentions, not irreducible group essences, a principle formalized in economics and social theory to explain outcomes like market equilibria through agent-based models.[4]
- Limited government and voluntary association: Political structures should protect individual rights without initiating force, allowing associations only by consent, as violations of this lead to empirically observed inefficiencies, such as reduced innovation in high-regulation environments documented in World Bank data from 1990-2020.[14][5]
Origins of the Term
The French term individualisme emerged in the early 19th century as a critique of perceived social atomization following the French Revolution, initially denoting a disruptive emphasis on personal autonomy over communal bonds. Disciples of the social theorist Claude Henri de Saint-Simon, who died in 1825, introduced the word around that time to contrast their vision of organized collective progress with what they saw as selfish fragmentation.[16] By 1836, individualisme had been entered into French dictionaries, often invoked by romanticist writers in a derogatory manner to highlight threats to societal unity from excessive self-regard.[17] In English, "individualism" appeared in the 1820s, drawing from the French root, but its early adoption carried a similar pejorative tone, particularly among utopian socialists opposing emergent liberal economies. Followers of Robert Owen, known as Owenites, prominently used the term in the late 1830s to condemn the competitive individualism they associated with industrial capitalism and personal initiative, framing it as antithetical to cooperative ideals.[18][19] The term's negative connotations persisted in its initial philosophical and political discourse, with proponents of individualism later reclaiming it to affirm rational self-interest and limited government as bulwarks against collectivist overreach. This shift reflected broader tensions between Enlightenment-derived personal rights and 19th-century reactions favoring hierarchical or socialist orders.[18]Historical Development
Ancient and Pre-Modern Roots
In ancient Greece during the Classical period (5th–4th centuries BCE), proto-individualist thought emerged through emphasis on personal inquiry and moral autonomy, challenging the dominant civic collectivism of the polis. Socrates (c. 469–399 BCE), an Athenian philosopher, exemplified this by employing the elenchus—a dialectical method of questioning—to expose inconsistencies in beliefs and urge self-examination, asserting that "the unexamined life is not worth living."[20] His prioritization of individual virtue and care for the soul over wealth, reputation, or societal approval conflicted with Athenian norms, resulting in his trial for impiety and corrupting the youth, and execution by hemlock in 399 BCE.[20] This stance highlighted tensions between personal reason and collective tradition, marking an early recognition that individual destiny need not be wholly subsumed by society.[21] Aristotle (384–322 BCE), while affirming humans as "political animals" by nature—requiring communal life in the polis for the exercise of logos (reasoned speech) and full humanity—identified risks of individual subordination under imperial or overly collective rule.[22] He proposed alternatives like the philosophic life or pursuits in education and arts, allowing personal flourishing beyond strict political engagement.[22] Hellenistic philosophies built on this: Epicureanism advocated withdrawal to private life for tranquility, while Stoicism, founded by Zeno of Citium (c. 334–262 BCE), centered ethics on individual virtue as the sole good, attainable through rational self-control and assent to impressions, rendering external circumstances irrelevant to eudaimonia.[23] Roman Stoics like Epictetus (c. 50–135 CE), a former slave, reinforced inner autonomy, teaching that true liberty and happiness depend on mastering one's judgments, not altering the world.[23] Marcus Aurelius (121–180 CE), emperor from 161 to 180 CE, applied these principles personally amid political duties, emphasizing self-command over passions.[23] Pre-modern roots extended into medieval Christianity, where doctrines of individual salvation and conscience fostered personal moral agency, though within ecclesiastical frameworks. The Catholic Church's expanding incest prohibitions—reaching sixth cousins by the 11th century—dissolved extended kin networks, promoting nuclear families, geographic mobility, and analytic thinking oriented toward impersonal institutions, laying groundwork for later individualism.[24][25]Enlightenment and Modern Emergence
The Enlightenment era, extending from the late 17th to the 18th century, elevated individual reason and autonomy as mechanisms for human advancement, challenging ecclesiastical and monarchical authority in favor of self-directed inquiry.[26] This shift positioned the individual as capable of independent moral and intellectual judgment, exemplified by Immanuel Kant's 1784 assertion that enlightenment entails "humankind’s release from its self-incurred immaturity," where immaturity stems from reliance on external guidance rather than personal understanding.[26] Such principles undermined collectivist traditions, fostering a view of society as composed of autonomous agents pursuing rational self-betterment. John Locke's Two Treatises of Government (1689) provided a cornerstone for political individualism by positing natural rights to life, liberty, and property, grounded in the premise of self-ownership—each person inherently owns their body and labor.[27] Locke argued that property originates when individuals mix their labor with unowned resources, subject to provisos like non-spoilage and sufficiency for others, which justified private accumulation as a natural extension of personal agency.[27] He further maintained that governments gain legitimacy solely through the express or tacit consent of individuals entering a social contract to safeguard these rights, with the right to dissolve tyrannical rule if protections fail, thus embedding individual consent as the basis of political order.[27] Adam Smith extended these ideas into economics with An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), where self-interested actions by individuals—pursuing profit through specialization and trade—yield societal gains via the "invisible hand," an unintended mechanism coordinating decentralized decisions without coercive oversight.[28] In The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), Smith reconciled self-interest with social cohesion, arguing that individuals regulate pursuits through an internal "impartial spectator," balancing personal gain with sympathy for others to achieve approbation and happiness.[28] This framework portrayed economic individualism not as atomistic greed but as a productive force harnessed by liberty, influencing the transition from mercantilist controls to free-market systems that prioritized individual initiative.[28] Collectively, Lockean rights theory and Smithian economics dismantled absolutist structures, promoting constitutionalism and capitalism as systems respecting individual sovereignty, which manifested in events like the Glorious Revolution (1688) and informed later declarations asserting inalienable personal rights.[27][28] These developments marked individualism's modern emergence by reconceptualizing society as an aggregate of rights-bearing agents rather than hierarchical collectives.19th-21st Century Evolution
In the 19th century, individualism evolved from Enlightenment foundations into a more assertive cultural and philosophical force, particularly in the United States, where it aligned with frontier expansion and economic self-reliance. The American frontier, as analyzed through historical census data from the 18th and 19th centuries, fostered "rugged individualism" by rewarding personal initiative in resource-scarce environments, with settlers exhibiting higher rates of self-employment and geographic mobility compared to non-frontier regions.[29] Transcendentalist thinkers amplified this ethos: Ralph Waldo Emerson's 1841 essay "Self-Reliance" emphasized intuition over societal conformity, arguing that "imitation is suicide," while Henry David Thoreau's Walden (1854) chronicled deliberate, self-sufficient living as a rejection of materialism.[5] In Europe, John Stuart Mill's On Liberty (1859) codified protections for individual liberty via the harm principle, restricting interference only when actions directly injure others, influencing liberal reforms amid industrialization.[15] Herbert Spencer's evolutionary sociology, outlined in works like Social Statics (1851), applied natural selection to human society, advocating minimal state intervention to allow individual adaptation.[30] Max Stirner's The Ego and Its Own (1844) represented a radical strain, rejecting all external abstractions in favor of unique egoism, prefiguring later anarcho-individualism.[3] This period saw individualism intertwined with market economies, as antebellum America experienced industrial growth where individual entrepreneurship drove innovations in manufacturing, with patent filings rising from 552 in 1837 to over 25,000 by 1860.[31] Critiques emerged from socialists, who coined "individualism" pejoratively around 1826-1860 to decry egoistic competition, yet proponents like Spencer countered that it enabled progress over collectivist stagnation.[16] The 20th century tested individualism against collectivist ideologies, reinforcing its defense in economics and ethics amid world wars and the Cold War. Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek revived methodological individualism, positing that social phenomena arise from individual actions; Hayek's The Road to Serfdom (1944) argued centralized planning erodes personal choice, citing Soviet famines and Nazi controls as evidence of collectivism's failures, with over 20 million deaths under Stalin alone from 1924-1953.[30] Ayn Rand's Objectivism, detailed in The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957), elevated rational self-interest as a moral imperative, portraying creators withdrawing from parasitic societies, selling millions and influencing libertarian movements.[5] Existentialists like Jean-Paul Sartre (1943's Being and Nothingness) stressed individual authenticity amid absurdity, though his later Marxism highlighted tensions.[32] Post-World War II prosperity in the West correlated with individualism's expansion, as U.S. GDP per capita tripled from 1945 to 1973 under relatively free markets, contrasting Eastern Bloc stagnation.[5] However, social Darwinist infusions lent harsher edges, justifying inequality as fitness-based.[3] In the 21st century, digital technologies have hypercharged individualism, enabling unprecedented self-expression and customization, yet prompting debates on its sustainability. Platforms like Facebook (launched 2004) and smartphones (widespread post-2007 iPhone) facilitated personalized content algorithms, with global internet users reaching 5.3 billion by 2023, amplifying individual curation over mass media.[33] Silicon Valley's startup culture, exemplified by figures like Elon Musk, embodies entrepreneurial individualism, with venture capital funding individual-led innovations driving 21st-century GDP growth in tech sectors.[34] Longitudinal studies of cultural values, using World Values Survey data from 1981-2014, indicate individualism peaked in Western societies around the late 20th century, potentially plateauing as younger cohorts show slight shifts toward communal orientations in surveys.[35] Critiques highlight isolation, with U.S. loneliness rates rising 20% since 2000 per CDC data, attributing it to weakened communal ties amid hyper-autonomy.[36] Nonetheless, individualism underpins resilience in crises, as seen in decentralized responses to supply chain disruptions during the 2020-2022 pandemic, where individual adaptability outperformed rigid bureaucracies.[37]Philosophical Foundations
Key Thinkers and Concepts
John Locke laid foundational principles for philosophical individualism through his doctrine of natural rights, asserting in his Two Treatises of Government (1689) that individuals own themselves and thus possess inherent rights to life, liberty, and property, independent of governmental grant.[27] This self-ownership premise posits that every person has a right to the fruits of their labor, forming the basis for individual autonomy against arbitrary authority.[38] John Stuart Mill advanced individualistic ethics in On Liberty (1859), advocating the harm principle whereby individual liberty should only be limited to prevent harm to others, emphasizing personal sovereignty in thought, speech, and action as essential for human progress and self-development.[15] Mill's utilitarianism integrated individualism by arguing that societal utility is maximized through the free pursuit of individual ends, critiquing conformity as a threat to originality.[15] Max Stirner, in The Ego and Its Own (1844), propounded radical egoism, rejecting all external abstractions like state, society, or morality that subordinate the unique individual, whom he termed the "ego," to fixed ideas or spooks.[39] Stirner's philosophy centers on the sovereign self, where the individual appropriates the world for personal use without moral obligation, influencing later anarchistic and existential thought by prioritizing unyielding self-assertion over collective norms.[39] Ayn Rand's Objectivism, systematized in works like The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957), champions rational self-interest as the moral code of individualism, holding that the individual's life is the standard of value and that reason, not altruism or faith, guides productive achievement.[40] Rand viewed the independent mind as the root of all progress, condemning collectivism for sacrificing the able to the unable and asserting that rights derive from the requirements of human survival qua man.[41] Core concepts include self-ownership, the notion that individuals are prior to society and hold proprietary rights over their bodies and labor outputs, underpinning arguments against unconsented coercion.[27] Rational egoism posits that pursuing one's long-term interests aligns with ethical action, contrasting altruism by deriving morality from the fact of individual consciousness and volition.[40] Individual agency emphasizes personal responsibility for choices, rejecting deterministic views that dissolve the self into social forces or historical inevitability.[42]Ethical Egoism and Rational Self-Interest
Ethical egoism posits that moral agents ought to perform actions that maximize their own self-interest, serving as a normative ethical theory distinct from descriptive psychological egoism, which claims humans always act from self-interest.[43] This doctrine aligns with individualism by asserting that the individual's rational pursuit of personal benefit constitutes the foundation of morality, rejecting obligations to sacrifice for others or collectives unless such actions incidentally advance one's own ends.[43] Proponents argue that ethical egoism promotes genuine human flourishing, as altruism often masks disguised self-interest or leads to exploitation, whereas conscious self-prioritization fosters productivity and innovation.[44] Max Stirner, in his 1844 work The Ego and Its Own, advanced a radical form of egoism emphasizing "ownness" (Eigenheit), wherein the unique individual rejects abstract "spooks" like state, morality, or society that subordinate personal will.[39] Stirner's egoism rejects fixed ethical norms, advocating instead for the egoist to appropriate all for their own use, forming voluntary "unions of egoists" based on mutual utility rather than duty.[39] This framework influenced individualist anarchism, positing that true freedom arises from uncompromised self-assertion, free from ideological chains that academia and media often uncritically uphold as virtues.[39] Ayn Rand's Objectivism, developed in the mid-20th century, refines ethical egoism into rational self-interest, holding that actions are moral if they align with objective reason to achieve one's long-term survival and happiness.[40] In The Virtue of Selfishness (1964), Rand argues that rational selfishness—productive achievement, independence, and trade by consent—contrasts with irrational whims or sacrificial ethics, which she contends undermine individual efficacy and societal progress.[45] Rand's view, supported by her analysis of human cognition as volitional and reality-oriented, maintains that enlightened self-interest harmonizes with others' rights through non-initiation of force, yielding mutual benefits absent in collectivist systems.[40] Empirical observations of market economies, where self-interested innovation drives growth, lend indirect support, though critics from biased institutional perspectives often dismiss this as overly atomistic.[46] Critics of ethical egoism, including those in academic philosophy, contend it fails to resolve interpersonal conflicts or justify cooperation without universalizability, yet proponents counter that rational egoists recognize long-term gains from reciprocity, as evidenced in game-theoretic models like repeated prisoner's dilemmas where self-interest sustains cooperation.[43] In individualist philosophy, this ethic underscores personal sovereignty, positing that societal order emerges from aggregated rational pursuits rather than imposed altruism, a causal dynamic observable in historical shifts toward liberal institutions post-Enlightenment.[40]Societal and Methodological Dimensions
Methodological Individualism in Social Sciences
Methodological individualism asserts that social phenomena, including institutions, norms, and collective behaviors, must be explained through the purposeful actions, intentions, and interactions of individuals rather than treating supraindividual entities like "society" or "the state" as causal agents with independent explanatory power.[4] This approach posits that higher-level social structures emerge as unintended consequences of individual decisions, emphasizing subjective meanings and rational choices as the foundational units of analysis.[47] In practice, it requires reducing explanations to individual-level facts—such as beliefs, preferences, and constraints—while acknowledging that aggregates arise from decentralized processes without assuming holistic properties that cannot be traced back to agents.[48] The doctrine traces its roots to the Austrian School of economics, particularly Carl Menger's 1883 Investigations into the Method of the Social Sciences with Special Reference to Economics, where he argued that economic categories like money and prices originate organically from individual exchanges rather than collective designs or teleological wholes.[49] Max Weber advanced this in sociology by insisting that social action is interpretable only through actors' subjective understandings, rejecting organicist views of society as a superorganism; he formalized it as the principle that "social phenomena are to be understood in terms of the intended and unintended consequences of individual actions."[4] Joseph Schumpeter coined the term "methodological individualism" in 1908, crediting it to Weber while applying it to economic history, though Friedrich Hayek later refined it to highlight the limits of rational reconstruction in complex orders, warning against overreliance on full knowledge of individual motivations.[50] These foundations influenced rational choice theory in political science and economics, where models like game theory simulate social outcomes from individual utility maximization.[48] In contrast to methodological holism, which treats social wholes as emergent realities requiring explanations irreducible to parts—such as Émile Durkheim's "social facts" exerting constraint independently—methodological individualism maintains that holistic claims fail causal tests because only individuals initiate actions, and purported collective causes dissolve upon disaggregation into agent-specific mechanisms.[51] Proponents argue this aligns with empirical verifiability, as holistic posits often reify abstractions without falsifiable individual linkages, though critics contend it underestimates path-dependent emergences where wholes feedback to shape individuals, as in structuration theory.[49] Empirical applications, such as Austrian business cycle theory attributing booms and busts to individual entrepreneurs' responses to monetary signals rather than systemic forces, demonstrate its utility in avoiding fallacies of composition.[49] Despite debates, it remains a cornerstone in fields prioritizing predictive accuracy, like microeconomics, where aggregate predictions derive strictly from behavioral axioms.[52]Individual Agency Versus Social Structures
The debate between individual agency and social structures centers on whether personal choices, motivations, and actions primarily drive human outcomes or if broader systemic forces—such as economic classes, cultural norms, institutions, and power relations—predominantly constrain or dictate them. Proponents of individual agency, aligned with methodological individualism, argue that social phenomena emerge from the intentional or habitual behaviors of individuals pursuing their ends under given constraints, rather than from autonomous "structures" independent of human action.[49] This view, articulated by thinkers like Friedrich Hayek, posits that explanations in social sciences must trace macro-level patterns back to micro-level decisions, rejecting holistic reductions that treat society as a supraindividual entity with causal primacy over persons.[53] In contrast, structural perspectives, exemplified by Émile Durkheim's concept of "social facts," emphasize external realities—ways of acting, thinking, and feeling—that exist outside individuals and exert coercive influence, shaping behavior through collective currents rather than isolated wills.[54] Empirical evidence from behavioral genetics supports the causal weight of individual-level factors. Twin studies indicate that heritability accounts for 30-50% of variance in socioeconomic status attainment, including class position and occupational status, with genetic influences persisting across environments and not fully mediated by parental resources.[55] [56] For instance, monozygotic twins reared apart show greater similarity in earnings and education than dizygotic twins or adoptive siblings, suggesting innate traits and personal agency interact to produce outcomes beyond shared family structures.[57] Similarly, self-control—a proxy for agency—exhibits heritability estimates averaging around 60% in meta-analyses of twin data, influencing life trajectories like educational attainment and income independently of socioeconomic origins.[58] Cross-cultural data further underscores agency in individualistic settings. Counties in the United States with higher individualism scores—measured by attitudes favoring self-reliance over conformity—exhibit greater upward economic mobility, with a one-standard-deviation increase in individualism linked to a 10-20% rise in children's income ranks relative to parents, after controlling for structural factors like education access.[7] This contrasts with collectivist orientations, where relational stability and group obligations correlate with lower intergenerational mobility, as individual ambition yields to familial or communal expectations.[59] Such findings challenge deterministic structuralism by demonstrating that cultural emphases on agency foster environments where personal effort causally amplifies outcomes, though critics note that structures can moderate agency through unequal resource endowments.[60] Critiques of overemphasizing structures highlight their emergent nature: institutions and norms arise from aggregated individual interactions, not vice versa, as evidenced by spontaneous order in markets or legal systems where no central plan dictates evolution.[49] While academia often favors structural explanations—potentially reflecting institutional biases toward systemic critiques—rigorous data from genetics and mobility metrics affirm that agency retains substantial explanatory power, with individuals navigating and reshaping constraints through rational self-interest and adaptation.[61] This reconciliation avoids dualism, viewing structures as crystallized habits of agency rather than irreducible overlords.Political Applications
Liberalism and Classical Liberal Thought
Classical liberalism emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries as a political philosophy centering individualism through the assertion of natural rights inherent to each person, independent of collective or state authority.[27] It posits that individuals possess sovereignty over their bodies, labor, and possessions, with government's sole legitimate role being to protect these rights via limited intervention and the rule of law.[62] This framework derives from Enlightenment reasoning, prioritizing rational self-ownership and voluntary association over hierarchical or communal mandates, thereby enabling personal autonomy and economic exchange as drivers of societal order.[63] John Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1690) foundationalized this individualistic ethos by describing a state of nature where individuals enjoy perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their persons and possessions, bounded only by natural law against harming others.[64] Locke contended that every person has property in their own body—"the labor of his body and the work of his hands"—extending to external goods through productive appropriation, which forms the basis for legitimate private ownership and justifies civil society only through explicit consent to safeguard these rights.[65] This rejection of absolute monarchy in favor of contractual government underscored individualism as a bulwark against arbitrary power, influencing documents like the U.S. Declaration of Independence (1776), which affirmed unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.[66] Adam Smith extended individualism into economics in The Wealth of Nations (1776), arguing that self-interested actions by individuals—pursuing personal gain through trade and innovation—unintentionally advance public welfare via the "invisible hand" mechanism, where market competition allocates resources efficiently without central direction.[67] Smith viewed human nature as driven by prudent self-regard, tempered by sympathy, but emphasized that free individual enterprise, not state paternalism, generates prosperity; for instance, he illustrated how bakers, brewers, and butchers supply society not from benevolence but from serving their own interests.[68] This principle critiqued mercantilist restrictions, advocating laissez-faire policies that liberate individual initiative to foster division of labor and capital accumulation, empirically linked to Britain's industrial growth from 1760 onward.[69] John Stuart Mill refined classical liberal individualism in On Liberty (1859), defending the harm principle: individual liberty in thought, speech, and action should remain absolute unless it directly harms others, as conformity stifles personal development and societal progress.[70] Mill argued that "over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign," positing individuality as essential for human flourishing, where diverse experiments in living yield genius, virtue, and utility greater than uniform customs.[71] He warned against the "tyranny of the majority" in democracies, where social pressures erode eccentricity, and cited historical evidence like ancient Greece's cultural advances from tolerating varied lifestyles.[72] These tenets collectively anchor classical liberalism's commitment to individualism as both a moral imperative and causal engine of liberty and advancement, distinct from later welfare-state variants that subordinate personal rights to collective ends.[73]Libertarianism and Limited Government
Libertarianism represents a political extension of individualism, positing that individual rights to life, liberty, and property form the foundation of legitimate governance, with the state's role confined to protecting these rights against aggression.[74] This philosophy holds the individual as the primary unit of moral and social analysis, rejecting collectivist overrides in favor of voluntary cooperation and private initiative.[74] Proponents argue that expansive government inherently violates individual autonomy by coercing resources and decisions, advocating instead for a minimal apparatus—often termed the "night-watchman state"—limited to police, courts, and defense to enforce contracts and deter force or fraud.[75] Central to libertarian thought is the non-aggression principle (NAP), which prohibits the initiation of force, fraud, or coercion against persons or property, permitting only defensive responses.[76] Derived from self-ownership, the NAP implies that taxation beyond voluntary contributions constitutes aggression, thus delimiting government to functions funded consensually or justified minimally to prevent greater harms.[76] Philosopher Robert Nozick, in his 1974 work Anarchy, State, and Utopia, defends this minimal state as emerging naturally from a state of nature through protective associations, arguing it monopolizes force legitimately without infringing broader entitlements.[77] Economist Murray Rothbard extended these ideas toward anarcho-capitalism in For a New Liberty (1973), critiquing even minimal states as monopolistic and proposing market-based alternatives for security and adjudication, though mainstream libertarianism accommodates limited government as a pragmatic bulwark against tyranny.[78] Empirical evidence supports the efficacy of such constraints: the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, measuring regulatory limits, property rights, and fiscal restraint, correlates higher scores with greater GDP per capita and poverty reduction across 180+ countries as of 2023.[79] For instance, nations scoring "free" or "mostly free" average over $50,000 in GDP per capita, compared to under $7,000 for "repressed" economies, attributing causality to unleashed individual incentives fostering innovation and trade.[80] Critics from collectivist perspectives contend limited government exacerbates inequalities, yet libertarians counter that state interventions distort markets and incentives, empirically linked to stagnation, as seen in post-1945 comparisons of freer West Germany versus controlled East Germany, where the former's GDP per capita surpassed the latter by factors of 3-4 by 1989.[81] This framework aligns individualism with causal realism, wherein voluntary exchanges aggregate to societal order without centralized coercion, prioritizing empirical outcomes over normative equity mandates.[82]Conservative Individualism and Personal Responsibility
Conservative individualism posits that human flourishing arises from the exercise of personal agency within a framework of moral traditions, family obligations, and communal duties, rather than isolated self-interest or unchecked state provision. This perspective, articulated by Russell Kirk, holds that true freedom is restrained by an enduring moral order and the recognition of human imperfection, where individuals bear primary responsibility for their conduct and welfare.[83] Unlike libertarian variants that prioritize absolute autonomy, conservative thought integrates individualism with prudence and custom, viewing excessive reliance on government as corrosive to character and self-reliance.[84] Edmund Burke exemplified this by critiquing abstract individualism during the French Revolution, arguing that liberty is not "solitary, unconnected, individual, selfish" but intertwined with societal bonds and inherited wisdom.[85] Burke emphasized moral duties over rights alone, warning that severing individuals from tradition invites chaos and erodes the personal accountability essential for ordered liberty.[86] This foundational view influenced later conservatives, who see personal responsibility as the antidote to societal decay, fostering virtues like thrift, work ethic, and family formation. In the 20th century, Charles Murray's Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950–1980 (1984) provided empirical evidence that Great Society welfare expansions inadvertently undermined personal responsibility by reducing incentives for work and marriage, correlating with rises in out-of-wedlock births from 24% in 1965 to 66% by 1991 among affected populations and persistent poverty traps.[87] Murray argued that pre-1965 progress in reducing black poverty—from 87% in 1940 to 22% in 1960—was reversed by policies subsidizing dependency, as illegitimacy rates tripled and labor force participation declined, attributing outcomes to behavioral disincentives rather than discrimination alone.[88] This analysis, echoed by Thomas Sowell, posits that absolving individuals of consequences for choices—through expansive aid—exacerbates problems like crime and family breakdown, as seen in urban welfare concentrations where dependency ratios exceeded 80% in some areas by the 1980s.[89] The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, informed by these critiques, imposed work requirements and time limits on aid, slashing welfare caseloads by over 60% from 12.2 million recipients in 1996 to 4.5 million by 2000, while single-mother employment rose 15-20% and child poverty among recipients fell.[90] Conservatives attribute this success to restoring agency, contrasting it with prior expansions that, per Heritage Foundation analysis, fostered intergenerational dependency by signaling that personal effort was optional.[84] Such reforms underscore the causal link between accountability and outcomes, with data showing reduced teen birth rates and improved economic mobility in reformed states.[89] Critics from academia often downplay these effects, citing broader economic growth, but conservative rebuttals highlight controlled studies, like those in post-reform Wisconsin, where caseload reductions preceded national trends and correlated with 10-15% gains in family stability metrics.[84] This emphasis on verifiable incentives over systemic excuses aligns with first-principles causality: behaviors respond to rewards, and policies promoting responsibility yield measurable societal gains in self-sufficiency and order.[87]Economic Manifestations
Capitalism and Market Individualism
Capitalism represents the economic expression of individualism through its emphasis on private property rights, voluntary exchange, and individual entrepreneurship as mechanisms for resource allocation and wealth creation. In this system, individuals pursue self-interest in competitive markets, leading to emergent efficiencies without central planning, as theorized by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (1776), where the "invisible hand" metaphor illustrates how personal gain aligns with societal benefit via decentralized decisions.[91][92] This framework contrasts with collectivist economies by vesting control in owners of capital and labor, fostering innovation through profit motives and risk-taking.[93] Market individualism, a core aspect of capitalist theory, posits that free markets generate spontaneous order from myriad individual actions, rather than imposed designs. Friedrich Hayek, in Individualism and Economic Order (1948), argued that prices and institutions like money emerge organically from dispersed knowledge held by individuals, enabling coordination on a scale impossible for any authority to replicate.[94][95] This view builds on methodological individualism, where social outcomes trace to personal choices, as seen in Austrian economics' rejection of aggregate planning in favor of subjective valuations driving supply and demand.[96] Empirical data supports the prosperity links of market individualism, with higher economic freedom—measured by indices like the Heritage Foundation's—correlating positively with GDP per capita, life expectancy, and poverty reduction across nations. For instance, studies find individualistic cultures, which underpin capitalist markets, associated with greater wealth accumulation and lower net income inequality after controlling for confounders like parasitism stress.[97][98] Countries embracing private enterprise, such as post-1980s reforms in Chile and Estonia, achieved rapid growth rates exceeding 5% annually, attributing gains to deregulated markets enhancing individual agency over state directives.[99] These outcomes underscore causal pathways from individual incentives to innovation, though critics note potential externalities like inequality, which data shows mitigated by market-driven mobility rather than redistribution.[100]Empirical Links to Prosperity and Innovation
Cross-national econometric analyses indicate a robust positive correlation between cultural individualism and economic prosperity. Countries with higher scores on Hofstede's individualism-collectivism dimension, which measures preferences for personal autonomy over group conformity, exhibit GDP per capita levels that are substantially elevated; regression studies across global samples yield correlation coefficients exceeding 0.70, persisting even after controlling for institutional factors. [101] [102] This pattern holds in panel data spanning decades, suggesting individualism fosters environments conducive to wealth accumulation through enhanced productivity and resource allocation efficiency. [103] Individualism also drives innovation, a key engine of long-term growth. Empirical models using patent counts and citation-weighted innovations as proxies find that more individualistic societies produce 20-30% higher innovation outputs per capita compared to collectivist counterparts, with effects robust to controls for education, R&D spending, and trade openness. [104] [105] For example, instrumental variable approaches leveraging historical linguistic roots of individualism demonstrate causal impacts on technological advancement, where individualist cultures exhibit greater tolerance for creative destruction and entrepreneurial experimentation, yielding sustained productivity gains of 1-2% annually. [106] Corporate-level evidence reinforces this: firms led by executives from individualistic backgrounds secure more breakthrough patents, emphasizing novel rather than incremental advancements. [107] At the subnational level, individualism correlates with upward mobility and entrepreneurship. In the United States, counties with stronger individualistic cultural markers—proxied by naming patterns emphasizing uniqueness—display intergenerational income elasticity 10-15% lower, indicating greater opportunity for advancement independent of family background. [7] Cross-country data further link individualism to higher rates of opportunity-driven entrepreneurship, with a one-standard-deviation increase in individualism scores associated with 5-10% more new business formations per capita, channeling individual initiative into market-disrupting ventures. [108] These dynamics align with broader findings that individualism mitigates institutional weaknesses by amplifying personal agency in innovation, offsetting collectivist tendencies toward conformity that stifle risk-taking. [102]Psychological and Cultural Impacts
Individualism-Collectivism Cultural Dimensions
The individualism-collectivism dimension, developed by Geert Hofstede in his cultural dimensions theory based on surveys of over 100,000 IBM employees across 50 countries from 1967 to 1973, quantifies the extent to which individuals in a society prioritize personal goals and independence over group loyalty and interdependence.[109] Societies scoring high on individualism (IDV) exhibit loose social ties, where people expect self-reliance, personal achievement, and direct communication, as seen in countries like the United States (IDV score: 91) and Australia (90).[110] In contrast, low-IDV collectivist societies, such as Guatemala (6) and China (20), feature tight-knit groups where identity derives from family or community, emphasizing harmony, collective decision-making, and in-group obligations over individual expression.[111] These scores, derived from factor analysis of responses to questions on work goals like personal time versus company loyalty, remain influential despite originating from a single multinational corporation's workforce.[112]| Country | IDV Score | Classification |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 91 | Highly Individualist |
| Australia | 90 | Highly Individualist |
| United Kingdom | 89 | Highly Individualist |
| China | 20 | Collectivist |
| Pakistan | 14 | Collectivist |
| Guatemala | 6 | Highly Collectivist |
