Miles Jackson:
> I guess we're working from different definitions of the term
> "individual". Yes, I agree, the individual exists in the sense
> of the self-aware person. But when I speak of the need for the
> "individual" in our society, I mean precisely the person who
> expresses their unique individuality via consumption and
> participation in bureaucratic organizations.
I think the latter is a way of buying off the former.
> Is there some true, pure form of individuality behind the
> simulacrum you complain about? Will the person, liberated
> from these false forms of individuality, value autonomy
> and uniqueness?
Not necessarily. We live in the shadow of slavery; when one authority is removed, people generally go looking for another. A sort of reconstruction or recultivation of freedom appears to be required. I have some ideas about how to go about doing this, but they are not sweeping the masses by storm at this time.
> Cultural research suggests not. It's a bit overwrought, but
> human societies vary on a continuum of individualist--
> collectivist. The value placed on the unique individual is
> a cultural component of certain human societies, not all
> human societies. In collectivist societies, the person is
> primarily valued as a member of a group/community, not as
> a unique individual. So it is quite possible for humans to
> form communities without the glorification of the unique
> individual.
People in the process of constructing successful slave societies would want to inculcate an ideology that the slave did not exist except as a part of something else. This ideology would have to be driven far down into the culture, right into family life and the way in which small children were treated, so it would take time, several generations perhaps. But eventually one could produce a culture in which people believed they didn't exist in any significant way. I don't think it's a view of things which would occur to people "naturally" and so doesn't show up much in tribal cultures (according to my very spotty anthro readings). Hence the difficulty of enslaving the American Indians and the need to import slaves from Africa, which had been civilized/enslaved for a long time. All of this is _collectivism_, at least in its earlier stages.
As we know from reading history, though, the imposition of slave culture was never complete; there was and is constant rebellion and sabotage, a kind of backdrop of anarchism always reasserting itself in spite of everything. It was the genius of liberalism to incorporate some of this revolt into the State under the guise of individuality -- an individuality carefully circumscribed by State power, but a bit of breathing room nevertheless. In liberalism, individuals are induced to willingly enslave and police themselves. This procedure requires the production of the aforesaid simulacra. All of this is _individualism_. One must admire the sophistication of the invention.