There is an understandable degree of romanticism behind the benefits of collectivism and collective action. In reality, this romanticism is not derived from examples of forced collectivism, but rather examples of individual, self-motivated acts in which a person does something regardless of whether they gain or lose, in order to benefit another.

In certain instances, there can be an understandable desire to judge those that do not act in accordance with that which will benefit the majority. The external forces that take advantage of this desire and abuse individual goodwill to further their own agenda are arguably the greatest threat to our society. This is when independent thinking becomes so critical. Without individual thought being supported by fact-based decision making, these outside forces can manipulate the public through collective emotion – seemingly at will. Emotion predicated on the idea of collective need and social cohesion is the most futile and vulnerable characteristic of our society hold. Fear and hatred will result if we are forced into a collective as opposed to tethered through individualism. Any entity with truly immoral directives can easily infiltrate and manipulate the goodwill of people by playing off the romanticism of collectivism. This allows for nefarious entities to convince people to turn against the very thing that allowed them to function with a sense of genuine and moral purpose in the first place – that being individualism.

Individualism plays a crucial role in all manners of society. As members of society, laws and policies affect individuals in one way or another. However, if we have no appreciation or tolerance for individualism, it will inhibit our ability to be anchored to reality. We become prohibited from thinking rationally or logically on any issue, even when it is supposed to pertain to the public. If we ignore individual views, how can we give constructive or honest feedback on issues that are affecting us? This leads us to ask the question; what is ‘the public’ and who is a part of it if the individual is not allowed to participate?

Harmony is a word commonly used to describe collectivism. To a certain degree it is understandable to think of this word as fitting, but how fitting is it really if the involvement in collective action is such that people can't have individual thoughts or voice independent concerns? How does this harmonized collective hope to thrive, let alone survive? If history has taught us anything, it is that as humans we are imperfect, highly flawed creatures who certainly do not know everything. If we move towards a forced collective society, we will establish an ever-worsening, ‘all knowing’ mentality. Consequently, people begin to think that because they have silenced any opposing voices, the decisions of the herd are soundproof and will be without fault. Based on what we know about human behaviour from history, the idea of an all-knowing group of humans, who are above question and carry no faults, can in no way exist for long.

If we as humans adopt a collective society where individualism is looked down upon – or worse, made a punishable offence – we will push ourselves to the brink, regardless of what side of the political spectrum the group identifies with. In doing so causing true despair and hardship. That is why, as members of society it is always important to understand the value of individualism and work to promote its well-being. That is simply because a society cannot last long without individualism. By attempting to force cohesion and strip individualism for the greater good, we will see collectivism destroyed.

Sheldon Munroe
SAM Member, Author