Do social movements hinder individualism, or foster it?

Question

This question was inspired by one of Super Ruper's posts.

Answer 1

As said already, it depends on the movement.  

Many movements will claim to foster individualism.  This is usually in the form of "ra-ra you-can-do-it-if-you-try" attitudes along with the concommitant need so supress another group that is the postulated antipathy of individualism.  The feminist movement does this a lot, but so did Joe McCarthy, Hitler and Pol Pot.  It is not always negative either: Jesus preached a freedom through Him, but also fostered a sense of reponsibility for others.

It should be noted that any movement that promotes total individuality has a tendency to self destruct, and that is why most movements will foster certain expresions of indiciduality, except those that are antithetical to the movement itself.  

Political Correctness is a movement, often subsumed in other movements and used as a tool, that curtails freedoms in a tyrannical way (with a maternal, patronising smile).  These are often in the forms of restrictions on expression, which social groups are "favourable" and the methods a social group might use to promote it's agenda.  To my mind, as an educator, it is the fist in a velvet glove when it comes to many areas of modern society.  PC claims to promote freedom (ususally "freedom from..." certain things) but does this by curtailing the freedoms of others- the "non-PC" groups and individuals.

There is also the question as to whether individualism is good, bad, or good within certain limits.  Individualism can either be an expression of self, the right of *me* to be treated as myself, according to who *I* am rather than, to use a modern euphemism, treated as a number.  

Depending on the movement to which one belongs (to some extent) I might proclaim to be allowed individual expresion, yet an outsider may see me as being under all sorts of oppressive strictures.  To some extent, feminism saw marriage in this way, focusing on alleged oppressions, and ignoring the inter-dependence that makes marriage more of a 'symbiotic' relationship that a 'parastitic' one.  I use those terms as analogies, not in their utterly correct scientific context.

Individualism can lead, in certain people, and in uncontrolled form, even to solipsism.  This could be seen as the ultimate form of self-centredness, selfishness and ultimate social decay (if there are enough people living this way).  This makes social movements redundant.  

Ultimately, I am a believer that social movements vary in their promotion of individualism, according to their mission statement (whether official or not), and that the true expression of individualist behaviour is to wisely choose which social constructs to which one associates oneself.  people are not naturally total individualists: many ascribe evil connotations to individualism.

Answer 2

It fosters it for some and hinders it for others depending on what the social movement is. I say this because I have come to the realization that religion has become one of the most discriminated sections of individualism today. It is more acceptable to have an abortion, be a bisexual, con and rip people off than it is to take responsibility for your actions, raise a family and be faithful to ONE partner, and use your knowledge to rip people off rather than deal honestly with people. Our society is turning to S**t, but that's o.k as long as a few get what they want. ;-)

Answer 3

most of them hinder it. But none of them ever held a candle to the power of the modern media.

Answer 4

They could hinder individualism by giving people something to believe in and fight for, which will inevitably become part of their identity. It depends on how restrictive the movement is.

Answer 5

Foster it - the history of social movements is pretty much one of emancipation for various groups - women, coloured people, working class people, etc.  Hard to have much individuality if you have no rights or standing under the law :-)

Answer 6

wouldn't it depend upon the social movement??

there are two sides to this argument and it depend entirely on the side of the fence your on....

Hinder it:  Having to be "Politically correct" would impede a racist's individuality.   I'm sure there were slave drivers that, were livid freeing the slaves put them out of business..that hinders individuality.

Foster help: Were slaves individuals? no choice in where you sleep, eat, work, children are sold...sounds like the opposite to me so the social movement gave them individuality.

Answer 7

Hinder.

Edit*

Any kind of social group or movement typically encourages it's believers and followers to form opinions from a preconceived notion or "side".

On here, It's so bad that when a woman asks a rape question some men will immediately leave an answer talking about false claims. Even if the question wasn't derived from a derogatory place.

Or when a man asks about an issue that effects men it's countered with things that women have gone through and blah blah.

Same thing with racial issues, g*y groups, you name it.

People have made way to many different shades of gray.

I could go deeper into this but I don't feel like fighting. :)

However, I'm not saying that there isn't a need for some of these.

Answer 8

For starters, I don't believe that we need movements or advocacy groups to pass laws that need passing.  People need to stand up and be counted - let their voices be heard - make the government work for you...as it is intended.

Social movements, in my mind, draw people together and, often, persuade them how to think.  Far too many people follow 'the company line' without questioning it or thinking it through themselves.  Or worse, they hand over their own strength, and let the movement do the work for them...

I recognize there are some good movements - MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), for example.  But by and large, I fear that the movements become too large and tend to take over the collective consciousness...frightening, to me...