Has there been a steady continuation of individualism for better or the worse?

Question

this is for a western humanities essay

i appreciate all answers

Answer 1

I think there is more individualism, which is always for the better, so long as it does not contribute to the destruction of tradition.  One key here is food.  We need individualism to prevent cultural food traditions from getting rolled over by globalism, but we need people to conform to their traditions to carry them on.  Constantly trying to cook something new and exciting is killing so many culinary traditions that enter this country, and most new cooks never learn the fundamentals.

Answer 2

Given the libraries full of literature arguing the pro's and con's of individualism it's pretty tough to make a definitive answer to this question in a classroom essay. Something to think about is that individualistic cultures, basically western cultures, tend to look at people as possessing unique characterstics and rights.  Members of interdependent cultures tend to view persons as a product of their roles, environments and see people as possessing obligations towards others.  Alan Bloom characterized this difference with a "Hive" verse "Herd" mentality.  Individualists act as a herd, where if one is seperated from the group, they can survive with little loss from the seperation. In turn, the herd itself is not really diminished given that no particular member is irreplaceable with another member.

  A member of a hive, if seperated from their group, does not have the array of skills or resources to survive on their own since they are specialized and depend on others for many of the elements fot their existence. Likewise, the hive is diminished in the loss of an individual possessing unique skills which the others members relied upon.

  The nice thing about a herd is that everyone is modular, meaning that you ar given a position and if something happens to you, you can be replaced by another person since you are really an instrument. Individualism is credited with being able to motivate things like innovation and entrepreneurship more effectively since an individual is rewarded for their specific contributions.

  The upside of interdependence, or in some's words "collectivism" is that people are allowed to specialize more fully since there is less need for members of a group to learn redundant skills and perform redundant tasks. Research into innovation and knowledge transfer in organizations has also shown that interdependent relationships allow for more complex idea transfer, where two mere acquantances initially anyway, really can communicate with some constraints.

  A lot of derision is poured on widows, widowers, divorcees, adult children for not being able to perform tasks which westerners see as fundamental to an individual's existence.  Women/men who let their spouses balance check books, do laundry, cook etc.. are seen as being naively dependent on the other. In other cultures, this inability is correctly attributed to the specialization that occurs in a relationship. Dumb gender stereotypic role assignments aside, it makes sense for individuals to specialize and allow the other to focus on their specialization in return.

  Many globalists believe that the world is converging on a standard of individualism. I'm not so sure in that it seems that many cultures use other individualist culture as a benchmark for what not to be. An example is how many Chinese view the US. While they value the economic progress of America, a lot of discussion is made over what or if there are trade-offs.

Anyhow, I think we really need both at different times, but a lot of strong feelings towards and against individualism exist.

Good luck with your essay.