> The fact that you assume I'm making fun of/ridiculing
> teens is interesting, though. Again, the individualist
> ideology: if you think for yourself, you're good/superior;
> if you're influenced by social forces, you're weak/inferior.
> The paradox I love about the individualist assumption
> is this: Why do people in our society value independence,
> autonomy, individualism? They didn't each come up with
> the individualist values on their own; they have in fact
> internalized dominant cultural values. Thus even people
> who claim "I think for myself" are reflecting the impact
> of social forces on their thought and behavior, no matter
> how much they protest that they think for themselves.
>
> And again, this does not mean I have a "low opinion" of
> people who value individuality. I just want to
> emphasize the point that individualism--as expressed
> through fashion, car purchases, music preferences,
> whatever--is a crucial precipitate of socioeconomic
> relations. It is not (as common sense suggests) the
> invisible, psychological force that precedes these
> relations.
This doesn't seem to leave any room for autonomy - thinking for yourself - as rational self-determination (as in Kant's definition of "enlightenment"). This doesn't exclude influence from social forces (e.g. from reading and being rationally persuaded by Kant on enlightenment).
How do you reach the conclusion that "individualism ... is a crucial precipitate of socioeconomic relations" without thinking for yourself in the above sense?
Ted