Can Societies Filled With Individualists Ever Work?
And are we doomed to be ruled by the tyranny of the mediocre among us?
There are no schools of thought that have obsessed over the benefits of being an individual vs the benefits of being in a group more than the Existentialists & Transcendentalists.
The Danish, Christian Existentialist, Søren Kierkegaard, famously said,
"Had I to carve an inscription on my tombstone, I would ask for none other than 'The Individual.'"
And the American, Christian Transcendentalist, Ralph Waldo Emerson said,
"To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else, is the greatest accomplishment."
Both of these Christians were unique in that they felt that God was something to be found within them - apart from the Church and apart from group faith. Emerson found it in nature. Kierkegaard found it in... well - the confrontation of his own anxiety.
Friedrich Nietzsche wasn't a Christian at all - in fact, he infamously regarded the concept of God to be dead and no longer useful in the 19th century.
But he's still lumped together in a category with Søren Kierkegaard, Russian Novelist, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and many post-war, French Philosophers - like Jean-Paul Sartre because despite having unique views of the world... what they all had in common was a belief that the answers we seek lay within us.
Essentially, that individualism saves us from the mediocrity of the crowd.
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote,
"Inasmuch as in all ages, as long as mankind has existed, there have also been human herds (family alliances, communities, tribes, peoples, states, churches), and always a great number who obey in proportion to the small number who command—in view...
This need tries to satisfy itself ... by accepting whatever is shouted into its ear by all sorts of commanders—parents, teachers, laws, class prejudices, or public opinion.
The extraordinary limitation of human development, the hesitation, protractedness, frequent retrogression, and turning thereof, is attributable to the fact that the herd-instinct of obedience is transmitted best, and at the cost of the art of command."
In 'The Revolt of the Masses,' Spanish Existentialist, José Ortega y Gasset gives a scathing review of 'the mass man' - a conformist who is uninterested in intellectual or cultural growth. He believed 'the mass man' wasn't just a social class below us––but a class of apathy and disinterest in their own personal transcendence.
Ortega y Gasset was frustrated with the idea that because the ‘mass man’ is unwilling to take responsibility and improve their individual self - the majority rule could come from the most mediocre among us. That even without becoming cultured or educated - or by working to transcend themselves - by size, alone, the mass group can still grow into a powerful monolith that can control society as a headless herd.
These mass society collectives –– which have no interest in personal growth and seek only to adopt the views of the majority, without question, create a tyranny of the mediocre on the best of days. And a tyranny of the misled and manipulated on the worst of days.
Why wouldn't we want to be led by not just the most intelligent humans in society, but also those who are the most transcended versions of their individual selves? Those who have grown into a cultured version of themselves.
Sociologists have gone further to discuss not just the mediocrity of the crowd, but the dangers of it. By coining phrases like "groupthink" or "mob mentality," they've expanded on how groups of people can willingly be manipulated by preferring to "get along" and "fit in" with even irrational and dangerous views.
Mobs can often be willing to commit violence in the name of something they barely understand or can articulate––and all they really seek from the group is to find security amongst conformity. To belong and fit in––even with a dangerous and irrational majority.
But to contrast these views, I've often held the theory that human genetics has a natural ratio similar to animal packs: in that it spits out conformists at a higher rate than individualists for good reason.
In a wolf pack, there can't be 20 alphas. Any pup that grows up to be an alpha will be pushed out of the pack and must start their own group. Elephants and horses are similar. A horse herd might have only 1 alpha but their herds can be as large as 100.
It stands to reason that the harmony of the pack depends on a genetic ratio of 1 or 2 alphas amongst many "followers."
While Existentialists and Transcendentalists have been urging people to go within and break from the group consciousnesses for centuries, it's prudent to ask if, genetically speaking, there's even any sense in making EVERYBODY become an individual.
Because a group of totally autonomous individuals has no potential to work together, to agree on anything, to keep each other safe, and to thrive.
Not even The Existentialists & Transcendentalists, themselves, could or would have been able to get along in a single pack.
This week’s questions are as follows:
What are the dangers of group consciousness? How are herds of "unthinking & unquestioning" individuals manipulated in society?
Is "majority rule" dangerous to the progress of society –– for example, if herds are full of placid followers with no interest in growth or self-transcendence? Are we then ruled by the most mediocre among us?
Do you believe the herd mentality is a natural genetic phenomenon that crops up in human beings at a higher rate than the "individualists" or “alphas” precisely to keep humans working and surviving together?
Can societies filled with individualists ever work? Or do we need "conformists" and "followers" to be the glue that holds a society together, functionally?
Are herds, by definition, mediocre and placid? Or can we provide education and stimulation that bring transcendence and growth to the group too?
And lastly;
6. Can the ‘mass man’ be enlightened when he’s in a group? Or is the journey of enlightenment only and always something an individual must undertake beyond the group?
For example, as Emerson did by going within nature? And are we able to only 'rejoin' the enlightened group once that individual journey has been taken?
How To Discuss
You can comment below OR subscribe to the Substack to find the chatroom and continue discussing this and other topics with us there.
All free subscribers are able to comment and join our weekly discussions. Paid subscriptions are only voluntary donations, and are not required to participate!
Bluesky
You can also find a shorter version of this discussion on my profile on BLUESKY. Each Sunday question will be posted and discussed in shorter form there, as well.
Subscribe to The Beat Philosopher for more discussions like this every Sunday.
P.S. Once again, thank you to all of those who have answered the past two weeks’ questions. You can find last week’s question here:
Great article and questions. Some thoughts...
The "masses are mediocre" but one positive reading might be that they do care more than masses of the past - they are just misguided, or, more accurately put, misaligned with the methodology of the scientific process. So, despite their attempts to engage intellectually with what they see in the world around them, they come up short in their pursuit of a better opinion.
For example, the masses of the past may have effectively shunned giving much thought to political issues, merely consuming broadcast media content passively and mainstream opinion. Whereas the masses of the moment may listen to certain podcasts or disruptive information streams and entertain counter-narratives to the mainstream as they try to make sense of the world. To give this all a generous (and genuine) reading, this is a more "active" engagement with media.
However, the masses of the moment are typically not trained in the scientific process, the journalistic process, or philosophy. Thus, they are ill-equipped to become what they need to be - which is something akin to a newspaper editor... someone who has training to make a start on determining fact from fiction. The reason members of the masses now need this skillset is because much of the current media landscape - such as certain "news" channels - are found to merely be entertainment (as opposed to news) media. In addition to this, most podcast producers have given up on the role of being a journalistic editor. Or were never interested in that role to begin with.
So, the modern media landscape has pushed that editorial responsibility onto the consumer. And that is a high bar to place on your typical listener, reader or watcher. In a more educated society this could be an amazingly powerful situation - one where a broad cross section of society could participate in society's information feedback loop. This could allow, and indeed empower, the continued growth of the individual and society. But, if that is they way forward, then a radical round of intellectual tooling needs to be introduced into our education systems. And incentives in the media landscape need to move towards rewarding journalistically standardised information rather senseless soup.
Relating this back to the second part of question (1) - 'How are herds of "unthinking & unquestioning" individuals manipulated in society?' - we see that, for all the benefits of deinstitutionalising news & information media, we have lost an important role - that of the journalistic editor - in the process. And, next linking to question (6), I think that the group (or perhaps, more specifically, our societal systems) can play a very significant role in enlightening the individual. And perhaps the most important thing the group can give the individual is a range of methodologies that let the individual become informationally self-sufficient. But, ultimately, it will have to be the individual that undertakes the journey. This is for one reason alone - nobody can think for you. Each individual needs to become a better editor. Perhaps that is the path. And to drift off the path dooms one to blind conformity, mediocrity and being co-opted by tyranny.
🤔 Human beings are social and (of necessity) political animals. Their potential is liberated by others, and through recognition by others. The absolute solitary individual is in fact de-natured and can't flourish.
There's a limit to the number of possible political formations of humans, of which democracies are the least worse. OTOH, the modern liberal bureaucratic State is the prime agent of no-feudalism, and the destruction of both the collective and the individual, such that it is fast losing legitimacy and inviting the dragons of the outer darkness in its place.